Peadar Tóibín
Question:1. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach the number, and cost, of ongoing commissions and investigations under the remit of his Department. [22558/23]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Commissions of Investigation
The only ongoing commission of investigation for which I am the specified Minister is the National Asset Management Agency Commission of Investigation. As with all such commissions, it is fully independent in its work. The NAMA commission was established in June 2017, following consultations with Oireachtas parties, to investigate the sale by NAMA of its Northern Ireland portfolio, known as Project Eagle.
Its original deadline for reporting was 31 June 2018, but following several requests from the commission and consultation with Oireachtas parties, its timeframe for reporting has been extended. Most recently, in February 2023, I granted a further request for an extension, this time until the end of October 2023. From the time of its establishment to 16 May 2023, the commission has cost approximately €5.5 million excluding third-party legal costs incurred but not yet paid and which will be considered by the commission at the end of its investigation.
I take this opportunity to refer to the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Commission of Investigation, for which I was also the specified Minister until last week when I received its final report, which went to Government today. The IBRC Commission of Investigation was established in June 2015, following consultation with Oireachtas parties, to investigate certain transactions, activities and management decisions at the IBRC, beginning with the Siteserv transaction.
The commission’s original deadline for reporting was 31 December 2015 but following requests from the commission, and after consultation with parties, its timeframe for reporting was extended on multiple occasions. The commission’s report on the Siteserv transaction was received in July 2022 and it was subsequently published and debated in both the Dáil and Seanad.
In October 2022, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, accepted the commission’s recommendation that it would serve no useful purpose to investigate the remaining 37 transactions covered by its terms of reference. The commission’s substantive work was complete at that stage and on 25 May 2023, it submitted its final report to me, which deals with the costs of the commission as well as its reflections on, and suggestions for, reform of commissions of investigation generally.
The Government has now agreed that the final report will be published and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It has also agreed that the Minister for Justice, in consultation with the Oireachtas as appropriate, will consider the suggestions made by the commission in its final report for reform of the commission of investigation process.
While the final cost of the commission is currently being finalised, we expect it will be in the region of €19 million, including the cost of third-party legal cost claims that were considered by the commission in respect of witnesses who appeared before it. This figure does not include the cost of any further legal challenges that might arise. The commission was dissolved on 25 May 2023 upon submission of its final report in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions in the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.
The Taoiseach will have to agree that the commission of investigation system in Ireland is broken and is in need of major reform. Investigations are never-ending vehicles that receive extension after extension and cost the taxpayer millions of euro. They produce reports that often end up on dusty shelves with very little consequences for those who are implicated in the reports. The commission of investigations system is often used by governments to kick issues into touch often for up to a decade and by then the Taoiseach or the relevant Minister has long since gone.
The Moriarty tribunal started in 1997 and took 14 years to publish its final report, costing €65 million. The NAMA commission has already cost nearly €4 million and the Siteserv commission the Taoiseach just mentioned was to produce its final report in 2015, was meant to cost €4 million and ended up costing €19 million. Is it not time that that dysfunction was brought to an end? We need to reform the system. I believe we need to have a permanent investigation commission with specific timeframes to make its judgments so that we can get justice and information fast.
The Committee Stage of the mother and baby redress scheme legislation continues in the Seanad this afternoon and will move to Final Stage in the coming weeks. There is no commitment from the religious orders as to their contribution to that redress scheme. Unfortunately, the Government has still not resolved shortfalls in the legislation regarding children who were boarded out and children who were in these institutions for less than six months.
This is despite acknowledgment in the report of the interdepartmental group that the commission of investigation found that children who were boarded out in some cases experienced the very worst of abuse. As the Taoiseach knows, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission also advised the group that the six-month timeframe has no rationale and no reasonable link to the harm suffered by survivors in the Irish context. The appointment of former trade union leader Sheila Noonan as the Government's negotiator is welcome, although I have to echo the observation of activist Claire McGettrick regarding the differing lens through which the Government views the religious orders and victims. She wrote:
Good the Minister is pushing the religious orders to contribute to redress. But it's instructive to note the difference in approach re religious orders vs affected people:
Negotiations for the orders.
'We know what's best' for affected people.
There is still time for the Government to resolve the two key outstanding issues with this scheme. I hope the Taoiseach will intervene, even at this very late stage.
Is any investigation planned or proposed into the immigrant investor programme? This was otherwise known as the "golden passport" scheme. It closed to new applicants on 15 February this year. Quite a number of concerns have been raised about how it operated, to whom it applied and so on. It was often referred to, as I said, as a golden passport or a passport for investors. What brought about its closure? Was there an investigation, the results of which gave rise to the decision to close the scheme? Is there any plan to investigate the discrepancy in treatment between those who sought citizenship under that programme and the applications for citizenship and family reunification from others? I am thinking in particular of Syrians here in Ireland. I have been contacted by Syrians in Ireland who have close family members in Lebanon. They tell me there is now a real concern about the mass deportation of Syrian refugees back to Syria by the Lebanese armed forces, yet Syrians in Ireland, who are here legally and are seeking to have their relatives join them from Lebanon rather than being returned to Syria and to the brutal regime of Assad, are not getting any success in their pleas for exceptional cases for their family members to be allowed come to Ireland from Lebanon instead. I would like to know the position on the immigrant investor programme but also whether the State can see fit to ensure humanitarian visas be granted, particularly to those Syrian family members who are seeking to come and join families here in Ireland and who are currently facing the awful prospect of being repatriated to the brutal Syrian regime of Assad.
I received a reply to a parliamentary question from the Minister for Justice stating that the report into the tragic and untimely death of Shane O'Farrell, commissioned with the co-operation of Judge Gerard Haughton, was presented on 1 June 2022. In a couple of days, that will have been a year ago. After 12 years of Lucia O'Farrell and her family fighting like tigers to have this report published and have a full public inquiry established, and after this Dáil and the Seanad voting in favour of same, out of respect for the O'Farrell family, is it not time that the Government publish the report, discuss the conclusions reached by Judge Haughton and then, on the back of that, open up a full public inquiry? This has gone on too long. This is terribly tragic and sad. We have all witnessed how much it has impacted on the O'Farrell family. A year after the Minister receiving it, the report is still not published. That is not on. I would like the Taoiseach to respond to that.
I thank the Deputies for their questions. Deputy Tóibín raised the difficulties we have had with so many commissions of investigation taking so long and costing so much. I often meet people who request a commission of investigation into some matter or other. I am often very upfront with them and I say it will take years and could cost many millions of euro and they might not be happy with the findings. They do not always work out very well. Some have worked out well and some have not. There are lots of different ways to carry out investigations. Commissions of investigation are one way while tribunals, Garda investigations and GSOC investigations are others. Of course, the new Corporate Enforcement Authority, which I established last year as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, now has much stronger powers to investigate allegations of commercial malpractice or fraud. That is probably the body that should be used in the future for investigations that relate to commercial matters or commercial transactions. Of course, the Garda Economic Crime Bureau has a role in that too. One of the suggestions put forward in the IBRC report is that we have a standing commission of inquiry, which would mean we would not have to set one up each time. There are pros and cons to doing that as well. That needs to be thought through and fleshed out.
Regarding the Haughton report, as far as I am aware that is with the Minister for Justice. He has been very keen to publish it. We want to publish it as soon as possible but there has been engagement with the family about it. If they are happy for it to be published, I do not see any reason why it should not be but I have not been involved in that personally. Judge Haughton did a very detailed report. I would ask people to read his conclusions before calling for the next step to be taken because his conclusions in that regard are very clear.
Then publish it.
On the immigrant investor programme, to be very clear, it does not involve passports or citizenship whatsoever. It never did. The programme involves a residency permit for a number of years if somebody makes a major investment in the State. Nothing specifically came up that was untoward about it. However, the numbers availing of it are much larger than we expected. Almost all came from the one country and that raised concerns. That is why we suspended it. Let us not forget that it brought millions of euro into sports clubs, community centres and economic programmes all around the country. It was not a bad scheme in itself but we suspended it for those reasons. It is not comparable in any way with passports or citizenship or the normal immigration system. It was a permit in return for investment.
Regarding the mother and baby institutions, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, with the agreement of the Government, has appointed Sheila Noonan to engage with religious orders on their making a contribution. They are under no legal obligation to do so and it is unlikely that if we pursued them in the courts, we would be able to secure anything from them through that mechanism. However, we do think they have a moral obligation to make a contribution whether it is in the form of land or moneys. That is what we are seeking, that is what Ms Noonan is seeking and that has been done in the past in relation to other abuse.
As I understand it, the children boarded out who were in mother and baby homes are included and those who were not in mother and baby homes are not. It is a mother and baby homes or institutions scheme. We are not proposing any further changes to the scheme at this stage. We are keen to get it up and running and we want that to happen as soon as possible.
The six-month rule is pertinent here.
Departmental Offices
Ivana Bacik
Question:2. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [22861/23]
Mick Barry
Question:3. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [25547/23]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:4. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the senior officials group on digital issues, chaired by his Department, will next meet. [25578/23]
Peadar Tóibín
Question:5. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [25788/23]
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Question:6. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [25900/23]
Cian O'Callaghan
Question:7. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [25960/23]
Christopher O'Sullivan
Question:8. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [25963/23]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Question:9. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the economic division of his Department. [25964/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 9, inclusive, together.
The economic division in the Department develops and implements policy to promote sustainable economic development in areas such as job creation, housing, climate action, digital issues and wellbeing. This work is particularly focused on ensuring a co-ordinated approach to implementing the programme for Government and issues that cut across multiple Departments. The division supports the work of the Cabinet committees on the economy and investment, housing and environment and climate change, as well as associated senior officials groups and other cross-departmental structures.
The senior officials group on digital issues was established in 2021 to ensure an all-of-government approach to our digital transformation. It oversees implementation of Harnessing Digital - The Digital Ireland Framework, published in February 2022. A progress report published in December highlighted achievements during 2022. The group meets on a regular basis. It last met on 3 May and will meet again next month.
The economic division also maintains an overview of progress in important policy and sectoral areas in line with Government priorities, leads Ireland's participation at the annual European semester process, prepares the annual national risk assessment, leads development of Ireland's well-being framework, liaises with the Central Statistics Office and provides me with briefing and speech material on economic and related policy issues
I have to raise the slow pace of delivery on social and affordable housing. Some progress is being made and I welcome the announcement that the Land Development Agency, LDA, has received planning permission for more than 800 homes in Dundrum in south Dublin.
However, there is concern about the capacity to deliver on announcements once they are made. I refer in particular to an issue in my constituency because there was a clear commitment to 900 social and affordable homes on the Irish Glass Bottle site in Poolbeg. This commitment was made over five years ago yet at the weekend, there were revelations in The Business Post that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is ceding more and more latitude to a consortium charged with building homes on that site and as a result, a paltry 25 affordable homes will be delivered in the first phase of development, instead of 85. Planning permission was granted over a year ago for the first 570 units and we had understood that more of those would be in the cohort that would be social and affordable. Labour Party councillors were instrumental in negotiating the original deal to ensure much-needed social and affordable homes. Can the Taoiseach guarantee that we will see the required proportion of the homes built in Poolbeg being social and affordable homes?
I wish to raise the case of 44 workers in Cork city and the race to the bottom in terms of workers' jobs, wages and conditions. The case in question is that of workers at the Irish headquarters of the Canadian corporation Telus in Mahon - a customer experience centre that manages accounts for corporate clients worldwide. These workers have been working on Telus's Airbnb account but it now seems that their jobs have been outsourced to Bucharest, Romania, where according to recruitment website, Glassdoor.ie, Telus pays a wage of around €8,000 per year to a customer support specialist. Telus is a profitable company. These jobs should not be exported. This is the race to the bottom at its worst. Is the Taoiseach concerned by the example that is being set here and can he tell us what action, if any, he intends to take regarding this matter?
Despite Ireland’s progress in digital skills, the OECD skills strategy assessment found that many do not have the necessary skills to progress in a modern economy and that participation in lifelong learning falls well behind other EU countries. Digital and green transitions will transform the type of skills required in society and society. SOLAS has advised that higher levels of skills have become increasingly important for success in the labour market, the OECD analysis reflects significant concern about current and future labour and skills gaps and we know from the census that Ireland's workforce is now slightly older with a fall in the number of people aged between 25 and 39. With the National Training Fund in surplus, we understand that the Government is considering free or subsidised upskilling in areas of acute shortage such as green energy and the digital economy. Initiatives like Springboard are working but are insufficiently ambitious in terms of student numbers and it is not clear if the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science intends to address this for the 2023-24 academic year. What measures will the Government pursue to address Ireland's shortfalls in lifelong learning and will the National Training Fund surplus be used for this purpose?
The reduction in excise duty on fuel is due to lapse in two days' time. This will put an extra 5 cent on diesel and an extra 6 cent on petrol, which is a significant jump. It will hit families extremely hard. Hiking excise duty when so many families are in poverty and so many families are in arrears on energy bills is the opposite of what must be done at the moment. Figures released to me following parliamentary questions have shown that in terms of VAT and various other taxes, the Government is taking in huge revenues off the backs of suffering families in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Last year saw more VAT taken in on electricity, gas, home heating oil, petrol, diesel and solid fuel than in any year since 2018. A total of €294 million more was taken than in 2021. This is not to mention the increase in carbon tax. Given this, is the Government really going to kick families when they are down and when they are suffering from the cost-of-living crisis by increasing excise duty in two days' time?
I wish to revisit the disaster that is public liability insurance. We are hearing that the likes of Beyoncé and Coldplay will skip Ireland because of this insurance disaster. We know the damage that is being done, the danger for anyone involved in adventure tourism businesses and the issue for community centres and community organisations. We all know we need to see that duty of care legislation. Can I get a timeline for when that legislation will be through the Seanad and enacted? We know IDA Ireland needs to attract more players in but how do we make sure the savings for insurers are passed on to consumers and businesses? We know the personal injury guidelines and the impact of the reduced number of claims on them but we need it to happen for businesses and consumers.
Recently released data from the EU as part of the EU regional competitiveness index lay bare the severity of the infrastructure deficit in the west and the north west. These regions' competitiveness has been undermined by the failure of the Government and successive Governments to invest in the west and the north west. Out of the 234 designated regions across the EU, the north-west region ranks at 218th for infrastructure. This places the region in the bottom 7%, alongside some of the poorest regions in the EU such as Romania, Latvia and Bulgaria. Decades of failure to invest in the vital infrastructure needed to enable the potential of the western seaboard can no longer be tolerated. The crumbs from the table are not enough. They will not feed the ambition of those of us who truly understand the opportunity cost and the potential of the Atlantic economic corridor. What is the Government going to do to address these independently verified and shocking figures?
If you go on daft.ie or myhome.ie and look for rental accommodation, you are very unlikely to find any rental accommodation for less than €2,000 per month and you are more likely to see €2,500 to €3,000 being asked for. Many of the people who would want to rent such accommodation will be over the social housing income thresholds and, therefore, are entitled to no rent support at all but rents like these would amount to 60%, 70% or even 80% of their income. It is just not possible for people. Does the Taoiseach agree with the Commission on Taxation and Welfare that we should not have cliff edges when it comes to income supports and in particular rent supports? Will the Government introduce some sort of rent support for people who are over the social housing income thresholds because he must admit that those kind of rents are just not affordable for ordinary workers?
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the upcoming strike by water workers across the country in many different local authorities. These workers are due to strike on 7 and 8 June after voting overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. This comes after the very impressive rank-and-file activism of the water service workers pushing for these ballots. There are two fundamental issues here. One is the fact that these workers' pay, rostered overtime and allowances are not being red-circled in the event that they say they do not want to transfer to Irish Water but wish to stay with their local authorities. The second issue is their fear of the future privatisation of Irish Water if they do transfer to it. As the referendum these workers and the people were promised has not been delivered and as we do not have a guarantee that Irish Water will not be privatised in the future, when will we have a referendum with meaningful wording that enshrines public ownership of water in the Constitution?
In the same vein, there is a report in this morning's edition of the Irish Independent about a summer of discontent. The article listed a series of workers who have voted for strike action. As well as water workers, they include firefighters, paramedics in the National Ambulance Service, emergency call operators in Munster and pilots at Emerald Airlines. We already know that nurses have voted for strike action over safe staffing levels, while the scientists who took strike action last year are before the Labour Court next week.
When we raise workers' issues here, we are constantly told that this country has a very good industrial relations model. It may be a model that works because the lid has been kept on it for so long but what does the Taoiseach have to say about a potential summer or even winter of discontent, where workers have to fight for reform of the public sector, for working conditions to improve or go back to where they were pre-Covid, over retention and recruitment and, crucially, over pay being below inflation rises?
This is a very big issue for workers throughout the country who effectively are taking pay cuts.
I thank the Deputies for their questions. I join Deputy Bacik in welcoming the decision today to grant the Land Development Agency planning permission to build another 800 homes in Dundrum in south Dublin. This will be in addition to those under construction already by the LDA not too far away in Shanganagh. It will include a mix of social and affordable-for-purchase homes. As I do not know the answer to the Deputy's question on the Poolbeg site, I will have to come back to her when I have the facts.
Deputy Barry raised an industrial relations dispute. I am not aware of the details of the issue. We do not have any mechanism to prevent companies from offshoring and moving jobs to other jurisdictions. We benefit from this as well. Many companies that are not Irish bring their jobs to Ireland and we need to bear this in mind. All those losing their jobs are entitled to proper information and consultation. This should happen. They are entitled to a redundancy package. The Government can step in and offer help with job searches, education, training and other opportunities to help people to go back to education or set up a business. All of these things will be made available.
With regard to upskilling I agree with Deputy McDonald that Springboard works extremely well. We will increase the amount we invest in upskilling and lifelong learning in the period ahead. When it comes to the National Training Fund, it is a good idea to build up a substantial surplus in it. There will come a time when unemployment is not as low as it is now and we will need a surplus in the National Training Fund to retrain people. We will need a surplus in the Social Insurance Fund to cover increased jobseeker costs.
My concern when I listen to Deputy McDonald and Sinn Féin is that any time they see a surplus, they want to spend it all now. What happens in five or ten years' time if we face, for some reason or another, high levels of unemployment? Who will pay for the reskilling? Who will pay the jobseeker and welfare supports?
Is the Taoiseach predicting a recession?
It is important that we build up surpluses in times of plenty.
It is a matter of balance and investing in the skills now.
We are doing exactly that.
You are not. Industry does not share that view.
The approach of Sinn Féin seems to be see a surplus, spend a surplus and there is nothing left when we need it down the line. This is the pathway to a return to austerity. This is what I hear all the time from Sinn Féin. It is the glide path back to austerity.
No, you invest in your people and you invest in skills.
Spend the surplus now and have nothing left when we need it most.
By the way, you are the authors of austerity and not this side of the House, just for the record.
With regard to Deputy Tóibín's question on a reduction in excise on petrol and diesel, we reduced excise on petrol and diesel by 15 cent to 20 cent at a time when it was 500 cent per litre at the pumps. It has come down considerably now. It is approximately €1.40 or €1.50. He pointed out that we have taken in a lot of revenue from VAT on petrol, diesel, gas and electricity. This is true but it has also been given back. The temporary business energy support scheme has a big budget. The energy credits alone were €600 per household to 2 million households. This means €1.2 billion has been given back in energy credits alone.
It is still less than the increase.
With regard to Deputy Ó Murchú's question, the duty of care law is now in the Seanad. We expect to have it enacted this year but that is not entirely under our control.
Notwithstanding the fact that Beyoncé and Coldplay did not play concerts in Ireland, a large number of concerts are happening all over Ireland this year, including in Dublin, Cork, Galway and Slane. They have all obtained insurance so I am not sure whether it is as simple as the story we are being told that it is down to insurance solely.
Deputy Boyd Barrett asked about the cliff edge and said there should not be one. I agree with him on this. This is why we have cost rental.
It is going to be a few years.
It is so that people who do not qualify for social housing and who used to qualify for nothing else now qualify for a cost rental. We need to review the limits every year to take into account house prices and earnings. We have increased them and I anticipate we will increase them some more.
With regard to investment in the west, enormous investment is happening in the west of Ireland at present. Only a few weeks ago the Minister, Deputy Coveney, announced probably the biggest private sector investment ever in the west of Ireland, that is, 1,000 jobs being created by Dexcom in Athenry. I will be in Mayo shortly to open the new road between Westport and Castlebar. It is a €250 million investment, which is probably the biggest ever public investment in County Mayo. I am keen to continue to engage with Ireland West Airport Knock as to how we can invest there. There is also the national broadband plan. Hundreds of millions of euro of investment are going in every year. More is needed and it will continue for so long as the parties in government are in government. If the Opposition parties get into office there will be a fundamental change of economic policy and we will be in a recession within three years and they will be cutting all of these budgets.
The figures are independent.
Mark my words and somebody keep this for the future, in the unlikely event they ever form a government.
To answer the question asked by Deputies Paul Murphy and Bríd Smith, in my view strikes are best avoided and they are always resolved in the end. They can be resolved bilaterally through talks. They can be resolved at the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, or at the Labour Court. This is how the Government intervenes using its offices, the Labour Court and the WRC.
Uisce Éireann will not be privatised. This is in law already. We have committed to a referendum as well but we have not yet come up with wording.
You are never going to either.
There is always a problem with wording that might have unintended consequences in the Constitution. There is zero chance of it being privatised. It is not a company that turns a profit. I do not quite know who would purchase it.
You committed to a referendum so let us have it.
Climate Action Plan
Bernard Durkan
Question:10. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the extent to which his Department continues to exercise a leadership role to ensure climate action is a key priority across all Departments. [24620/23]
Mick Barry
Question:11. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach the extent to which his Department plays a role in ensuring climate action is a key priority across all Departments. [25548/23]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:12. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings that have taken place to date in 2023 of the climate action delivery board, co-chaired by his Department. [25579/23]
Neasa Hourigan
Question:13. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Taoiseach the role his Department has in ensuring climate action is a key priority across all Departments. [25678/23]
Christopher O'Sullivan
Question:14. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach the leadership role his Department takes to ensure climate action is a key priority across all Departments. [25962/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, together.
The climate action unit in the Department of the Taoiseach seeks to co-ordinate and drive climate action across all Departments by assisting the work of the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change and associated senior official groups. The Department also provides secretariat to the climate action delivery board, which is composed of the Secretaries General of those Departments that have core responsibilities in ensuring that the Government’s climate objectives are met. This board oversees the implementation of the climate action plan and acts as a forum for identifying solutions to any challenges or obstacles impeding delivery. The board meets quarterly. It last met in February and is due to meet again in the coming weeks.
The Department also monitors implementation of actions agreed as part of the climate action plan. Each quarter it reports to the Government on progress under the climate action plan and these reports are published on the Department's website. The Department also chairs several interdepartmental groups in the areas of climate research and modelling, climate communications and EU climate policy developments. It also assists the climate action units that have been established in each Department.
Bringing down our greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonising our economy and protecting ourselves from the impacts of climate change must be the preoccupation of all Departments. The programme of change we have embarked upon will be transformational in so many ways. All sectors of our economy and all parts of society will be affected and must be involved in this system change. Opportunities abound and doubtless there will be further challenges ahead but it is in all of our interests that we move quickly and with resolve to play our full part in this shared national and, indeed, global endeavour.
I thank the Taoiseach for the detail of his reply. The purpose of the question is to try to ensure, in accordance with Government policy, that all Departments can make a meaningful contribution so as not to leave the brunt of the heavy load in one or two Departments only. It is also an opportunity to ensure we in this country are fairly treated vis-à-vis our European competitors and non-European competitors, with particular reference to those who might be direct competitors insofar as our exports are concerned. It is critical that we move forward in a united way that ensures we meet our climate change targets on the one hand and that we do not impoverish ourselves in the course thereof on the other or in any way dismantle any sector of our industry that would be allowed in other European or non-European countries.
To meet our climate targets we need to support communities in developing and recognising their commitment to, and hope for, a sustainable future. This transition must be inclusive and democratic if it is to be successful and if policymakers and decision-makers are to bring the people with us.
This approach will not only deliver the transition; it will ensure that it is just.
My colleagues, Deputy O'Rourke and Senator Boylan, recently published a number of climate action proposals to support and encourage local communities. We want to see an increase in the resourcing of sustainable energy communities and the introduction of a new local energy action fund to ensure community groups are supported to reduce energy use and increase renewable energy production. We know that climate change, the economy and social inclusion are all interlinked. The establishment of a community wealth-building fund and a workers' co-operative development unit would support an economic model that is fair and more sustainable. We want to raise the target of community and locally owned renewable energy projects to at least 10% of Ireland's renewable capacity. We would also double the funding allocated to them. These are just some of the measures we hope the Government parties will support and advance in next year's budget.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach. Has he discussed with the various Departments the proposed nature restoration laws and plans currently being drawn up at EU level? As they currently stand, they are of major concern for many farmers who fear their lands might be flooded and not available for food production. The recent demand for environmental schemes clearly demonstrates the willingness of farmers not just to be part of but very much central to climate actions, where more than 46,000 applicants applied for ACRES, which was well ahead of any targets. The proposed nature restoration laws ask farmers to give up an awful lot and go into an unknown where their farms could be flooded. There are also questions about whether lands would be torn between forestry and rewetting. This is at a time when ambitious targets for afforestation are well behind. Is it realistic that State lands alone could be impacted by rewetting? What of adjoining landowners? Has this been discussed with the various Departments and EU officials? Will the Taoiseach outline the direction on it?
My question follows directly on from Deputy Moynihan's. I will ask about the forestry programme. In a document I helped leak, and that the Government had not put out, from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Environment, our draft forestry programme was rejected on the basis that it was not doing biodiversity. It very specifically referred to Coillte and the predominance of the Sitka spruce monocultural forestry model. I do not even know where that is at. Have we redrafted it? When will we see it? It raises a big issue. If we are, as we must, to do a sustainable, diverse form of afforestation and enhance biodiversity, the Government will have to pay farmers. It has to make it worth their while in order to get them on board so that they do not feel threatened and lose out by the absolutely necessary restoration of biodiversity, and meeting of our afforestation targets, with a new forestry model that replaces the disaster of the monocultural Sitka model.
Greenhouse gas emissions are declining across Europe. They are declining far too slowly to avoid catastrophe for humanity but, in Ireland, greenhouse gas emissions are rising. They are rising at the fastest rate of any EU country, by 12.3% year on year, despite the fact the Green Party is in government and we are in contravention of our targets under the climate action plan. Aviation is a key part of that. We have a very modest proposal, namely, a Bill that has passed First Stage that will allow the banning of private jets. Private jets epitomise excessive luxury consumption by the very richest in the world, who have an outsized impact on our environment, for which they experience very little of the consequences. It is the very poorest people in the world who experience the consequences first and hardest. The top 1% are responsible for 16% of all emissions globally. Just one private jet trip, into or out of Ireland, emits approximately 10 tonnes of carbon, which is about the same as one person in Ireland throughout the entire year. Does the Taoiseach agree we should ban these private jets?
I raise two issues related to energy usage and climate. Does Ireland have any plans to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, which is being used by companies internationally to thwart climate action? We have seen other European countries now signalling their intention to withdraw, including France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, especially following a landmark case where Italy was forced to pay more than €200 million in compensation to a British oil company after it decided to ban offshore drilling. I understand that similar litigation is possible here.
On the development of liquefied natural gas, LNG, storage, which is an issue being discussed today by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, I echo the calls of activists, and was glad to sign an open letter on behalf of the Labour Party, opposing the embedding of dirty fuel infrastructure in our energy system. Will the Taoiseach clarify the Government's position on LNG storage?
We are told we are moving from a developer-led to a planning-led system for the delivery of offshore wind. Many of the companies and those involved in the industry are speaking about the difficulty in shifting from one system to another. They are asking what the timeline is and when we will have a sufficiently resourced Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, right through to An Bord Pleanála; when the designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, will be up and running; and when we will have a system that is fit for purpose. We know we are years behind.
Are we looking at some sort of State involvement or investment, even if we are talking about a third-party vehicle or whatever, from the perspective of doing what we have not done before, which is benefit from these natural resources?
I again thank Deputies for their contributions. Deputy Durkan is correct that all Departments have to play a role in climate action, but obviously the ones that have to play the biggest role are the Departments of Transport; Environment, Climate and Communications; Agriculture, Food and the Marine; and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as those represent the areas that account for almost all the emissions. Of course, the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Finance, and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, also have significant roles to play. I agree we need to get the balance right. We need to take climate action but not in a way that causes people to lose their jobs or see their living standards fall, or impacts adversely on rural development. That is why the Government is trying to marry climate action with economic opportunity. Great economic opportunities arise from climate action, in particular the ambition I set out for Ireland to become energy independent through developing our solar, offshore and onshore wind, interconnection, batteries, green fertiliser, green hydrogen and all those new industries we can develop, import substitution and export. That is the vision we are working to press forward with.
On the matter of the nature restoration law raised by Deputy Aindrias Moynihan, we all appreciate the need to protect nature, to restore biodiversity loss and allow nature to regrow. We know how quickly nature can recover if it is allowed to regrow. The EU nature restoration law is still a proposal at this stage. As I said previously in the House, there are aspects of it that I believe go too far, particularly when it comes to taking agricultural land out of use for food production against the wishes of farmers. There are also potential impacts on urban areas which, if the law was applied to the letter, would make it much harder for grass pitches to become all-weather pitches and could place restrictions on people doing what they want with their own front and back gardens. There are some very far-reaching proposals. The Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Noonan, has been very clear that farmers should not be compelled to do anything and should be remunerated and rewarded if they do. I agree with that approach.
I encourage people to engage with the debate tomorrow in a productive way and suggest how the proposals can be improved, and what compromises can be made, to make sure the proposed law is fit for purpose. We do not yet have an agreed text. It is thought that could be ready for the Council of Ministers' meeting at Luxembourg on 20 June. At that point, there will be trilogue with the European Parliament in July leading to potential ratification by the end of the year, giving us two years to prepare a national restoration plan. We need an impact assessment. How this proposed law would impact on us economically and socially is also important. At European Parliament level, there will be negative votes from both the agriculture and fisheries committees, which are significant.
Aviation makes up 2% or 3% of our emissions. We are an island nation so we rely on aviation for connectivity in a way other countries do not.
I am not sure what percentage of the 2% the private jets make up. I do not know what the figure is but I imagine it is quite small. Banning them outright could have negative impacts on investment and employment. Certainly, if a CEO or a chairperson from an IDA client company is coming in, I do not think we can say to them that this is the only country in Europe where they cannot land their jet but they can continue to invest here and employ thousands of people-----
We are going to have to change some things.
I do not think a unilateral approach from Ireland would work in that regard. What might make more sense would be a tax or a requirement that sustainable aviation fuels be used over time. That might be a more realistic approach than the sledgehammer approach which would probably essentially say that Ireland is closed to investment from major companies into the future.
On the energy treaty, I am not aware of any proposals to withdraw from that.