Micheál Martin
Ceist:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if his Department has a policy on Government information services sending out reports or press releases on St. Stephen's Day; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2209/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Government Information Service
The Government Information Service does not have a policy on issuing reports or press releases on St. Stephen's Day.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. The reason I tabled the question is that a major report on private health insurance was issued by the Government on 26 December last. The one and only reason this was done, of course, was to try to bury it, and it would appear to me that was a clear policy decision. No Government which wants to respond to questions or wants to engage with the public on issues would publish a comprehensive and substantive report on such an important issue on St. Stephen's Day. It seems to be a clear and obvious abuse in itself.
As the Taoiseach knows, people had seen and are seeing massive increases in their insurance premiums, and tens of thousands of people over the last two years have dropped their insurance. Many have done so since the budget, and the Taoiseach will remember the very controversial decision that was taken in the budget two or three months before this report was published. In essence, the report painted a very stark picture of the future for health insurance in this country and essentially suggested it was coming very close to a tipping point in terms of its sustainability into the future.
Does the Taoiseach think it acceptable behaviour that the Minister should publish such an important report on St. Stephen's Day, knowing full well there would be no public discussion around it and that people would not have the facility or the capacity, given the day that was in it, to have the kind of serious debate the report warranted on its publication? In recent weeks we have had the publication of the universal health insurance document, with all of its lack of detail. It raises more questions than it answers and, again, it states that more legal and policy analysis has to be undertaken on the key issue of the market rate, despite the fact it is a White Paper. There is no detail in that paper as to the cost and pricing package that people will have to endure.
Given the Government's track record on health, and that of the Minister in particular, it seems to me the whole agenda, from the publication of that report on St. Stephen's Day, has been to avoid public debate on these issues and to delay substantive and penetrative debate where we get real answers. In particular, the publication of that report on St. Stephen's Day is an illustration of how far this Government goes to talk itself up when it wants to, but also to hide the unpalatable when it wants to. Publishing a major report on St. Stephen's Day was a new milestone in this regard. Would the Taoiseach accept that?
I have always tried to be fair here when I am dealing with the Government. Without being at all patronising, I think there are many challenges facing the Government and issues after issues after issues. However, the Taoiseach did promise a new way of doing business, he promised transparency, he promised clarity and he promised a democratic revolution. This report contained 32 recommendations. It is a very important issue for many hundreds of citizens who have private health insurance, which the Minister has acknowledged. Why publish it on St. Stephen's Day, when there is a minimum of media coverage and reporting and, in any case, who is listening to the news on St. Stephen's Day? It is a tactic used by other Governments to bury unpopular news in the middle of or on the eve of a holiday period.
This is a report which, I am sure the Taoiseach would acknowledge, requires the maximum distribution and the maximum information. Information is power; it is about empowering citizens. Therefore, not to give the people that information is to disempower them, which is the exact opposite of the reasoning given by the Taoiseach as to how his Government does its business. Would the Taoiseach not acknowledge it was a mistake to publish this on St. Stephen's Day when, clearly, the whole intention was to bury it as opposed to having debate, discussion and clarity about it?
The question I was asked by Deputy Martin was if the Government has a policy of the Government Information Service sending out reports or press releases on St. Stephen's Day, and if I would make a statement on the matter. I have answered that by saying there are no policy issues in that regard.
This was the report entitled Review of Measures to Reduce Costs in the Private Health Insurance Market 2013. There was an imperative on the Department of Health to publish it before the end of last year, and it let it out on St. Stephen's Day or the day after that. The document is the first of two reports produced by the author, Pat McLoughlin, and the second will be published in 2014. The health insurance companies, to be honest, were very keen for its publication and, far from burying it where it would not be seen, it was expected that the report would be of interest to a lot of people out there and to the media itself.
As the Deputies know, last year Christmas fell in the middle of the week. Consideration was given to the fact a document published on St. Stephen's Day would be of interest and would be the subject of considerable commentary in the post-Christmas period. It was not a case of shoving it off on a shelf where it would not be seen. The report was produced for public discourse and, accordingly, the health insurance companies and the author were alerted to the intention to publish the document on St. Stephen's Day. It was the subject of a number of news reports.
As the Deputies are aware, the phase 1 report which was published contained 32 recommendations under nine different headings. These were about reducing costs of private health insurance and dealt with the following: controlling costs in private health insurance; care settings and use of resources; the age structure of the market; clinical audit and utilisation management; industry approach to private psychiatry; fraud, waste and abuse; chronic disease management; claims processing; and admission and discharge procedures and processes. Most of the recommendations in phase 1 could be implemented on an administrative basis, while a small number, if adopted, would require legislation. There were also a number of key recommendations to drive down costs.
The report, far from being hidden, is absolutely relevant in order to ensure that patients are treated at the lowest possible level consistent with quality, and insurers should use existing information on the appropriate treatment locations for individual procedures.
It recommended that insurers use information of this kind to query cases claimed as an inpatient which might have been carried out on a day basis. In other words, was the right treatment provided? It recommended that insurers provide data to aid a more detailed analysis of the drivers behind the rising costs in the private health insurance. A template to be agreed with the industry is to be completed within the next six weeks to aid further analysis for the phase 2 report. It recommended that in future, the Health Insurance Authority collect these data from insurers regularly to make matters even clearer. It also recommended that the current clinical audit and utilisation arrangements by insurers be assessed in phase 2 to determine whether they are in line with the robustness of international practice; that the extent of clinical audit being carried out by each insurer be independently evaluated in phase 2 of this work; that in line with the plans for implementing money follows the patient, case-based charging be implemented using diagnosis related groups, DRGs, which would mean a fixed, pre-established payment for each case or patient episode, which did not happen previously; that health insurers publicly acknowledge that fraud and malpractice exist and publish data on the extent of moneys recovered from hospitals and consultants; and that the Minister for Health consider introducing measures to encourage younger members into the market and discourage, by means of a financial penalty, people who take out health insurance for the first time after the age of 30. This is known as lifetime community rating.
To recap, there is no policy of issuing reports on St. Stephen's Day, Easter Sunday or Easter Monday. This report was due out before the end of the year. It is an important report that contained clear recommendations for driving down costs in everyone's interest. If Christmas Day was at the beginning or end of the week, it might be different. It was in the middle of the week and that decision was taken. I assure the Deputy that there was no intention of hiding the report or deciding we would publish it and no one would read it. The report contains important recommendations that are in the interests of the patient and driving down the costs of private health insurance.
We will move on to Question No. 2.
Could I add something?
We have spent ten minutes on this question.
I have only one question. Deputy Adams had the same time as me and he did not even table the question.
This is a straightforward question.
I just want to ask a very straightforward supplementary.
We have spent ten minutes on it.
In fairness, I did not take up the ten minutes.
There are 97 questions for the Taoiseach. We will never get through them.
I did not speak for ten minutes the first time.
We cannot get into the content of the report.
I am not going to do that.
Go ahead.
Does the Taoiseach agree there was a policy and this is why this report was published? Will he give instructions to his Ministers not to engage in such a practice again? Most people would say that the reason this report was not published earlier was because of the budget decision on tax relief for health insurance, which hammered health insurance, the flak that would flow from the report, and the degree to which the report confirms the error that was made in the budget decision relating to health insurance and the successive decisions the Government has taken in respect of that issue. That is the point and that is why it was published on St. Stephen's Day. It was published to bury it and ensure it would not embarrass the Government given the earlier decisions it took in the budget.
The question was whether there is a policy on the part of the Government Information Service of publishing documents on St. Stephen's Day. I have answered clearly that there is no such policy. If such a policy existed, Deputy Martin would say we should have published half a dozen reports last week when the President was on a state visit to the United Kingdom. This is a very important report with all these recommendations for reducing costs for patients with private health insurance. The Deputy knows this as a former Minister. These things are pointed out here as being-----
I would not publish something on St. Stephen's Day.
It is out there and it is also online. People can read it. We did not say we published it but no one read it. It is clearly in the interests of patients in respect of private health insurance costs.
Climate Change Policy
Gerry Adams
Ceist:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy last met. [2240/14]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy has met in the past 12 months. [2241/14]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the times the Cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy met in the past year. [7498/14]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy has met since Christmas. [8948/14]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:6. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the number of times the Cabinet committee on climate change met last year. [16187/14]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy has met on two occasions in the past year, on 25 November 2013 and 24 February 2014. In addition, the associated senior officials group meets as appropriate throughout the year to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the Government's priorities in this area, including work on preparing the climate action and low carbon development Bill; preparation of the national low carbon roadmap to 2050 with inputs from the relevant sectors; preparation of Ireland's input to EU discussions on a 2030 climate and energy framework; preparation of Ireland's input to international climate change negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and implementation of a range of actions to support jobs and growth in the green economy. The Cabinet committee will meet again during the coming year, as required.
Former President Mary Robinson has warned that world leaders have at best two decades to save the planet from the devastating impact of climate change. Her warning follows the latest UN report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC which it described as a final wake-up call. Mary Robinson has urged world governments to implement major shifts in environmental and climate policy. The UN report warns that current efforts to cut carbon emissions have fallen significantly short of what is needed. In a previous report published just before Christmas, the IPCC concluded that humankind is to blame for global warming and warned that the planet will see increasingly extreme weather events unless governments take strong action. That report, which is entitled Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, stated that the past decade was the warmest on record and that much of this is down to the increase in the burning of fossil fuels. Foilsíodh an dara thuairisc inné and this tuairisc says that effects are already occurring on all continents and across all oceans.
We have seen it here. Mar is eol don Taoiseach, ag tús na bliana bhí neart stoirm againn ar fud na tíre. We know from our own experience, including that of the west and the south east, that businesses and family homes were flooded, roads were blocked and there was massive destruction. According to the Marine Institute, 230,000 farmed salmon were lost off the west Cork coast as a result of just one of nine storms to batter this island. Last year, unusually long periods of dry weather followed by periods of torrential rain left many farmers short of essential feed. The winter has been the wettest since records were first kept in 1866. I could give the Taoiseach more data. I am sure he is conversant with them. I visited King's Island in County Limerick and saw the devastation wreaked upon that small working class community and which has still to be rectified. We are now being told that extreme weather events will be more common and severe. Has the Government's climate change committee discussed the IPCC, the impact of climate change on agriculture and communities, the impact of the recent storms and their implications for the future?
The Government has yet to publish a full cost-benefit analysis to show how the State can benefit in terms of plans to generate electricity from renewable sources. There does not appear to be a comprehensive Government energy strategy that would encompass all the alternatives and renewable sources instead of focusing solely on wind power. There was to have been a Green Paper on this but it has not materialised so far. In light of these alarming UN reports and our own experience, when will the Government publish the Green Paper? I commend the thousands who turned out at the protest today against wind turbines and pylons.
I was there myself today at the protest. I note that the Sinn Féin Private Members' Bill introduced last week was not opposed by the Government. I encourage the Taoiseach not just to allow the Bill to pass to the next Stage, but actually to act on it. Given what we now know and given the way the future is looking in terms of all of these climate reports, would it not be a good thing that this Bill be passed into law to allow for the most comprehensive strategy possible on energy? This is now essential.
That is a good question. It is finally dawning on people that this is a matter of exceptional importance. I would heed the warning given by former President Robinson who has a great deal of expertise in this area. Whether the timescale is as brief as she points out is something I cannot judge but clearly when one looks at weather patterns all over the world, one can see the changing nature of the ferocity of nature and its impact on water levels and human life in various parts of the world. Clearly, a pretty serious change has taken place in the last number of years.
The Government has made a clear commitment in the programme for Government to develop a national position on climate change, including introducing legislation. The officials have met on a regular basis and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is now in a position, having concluded his Bill on climate action and low-carbon development, to publish it very shortly. I expect that is a matter which will take some considerable discussion here. Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2020 are set by the 2009 EU effort-sharing decision. Ireland's target for the non-emissions trading sectors is to limit its growth of greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2005 levels in the period from 2013 to 2020. The non-emissions trading sectors cover sectors which are outside the EU emissions trading scheme and include the agriculture, transport, residential and waste sectors. Deputy Adams will be aware of the challenge this presents to Ireland in the context of the removal of milk quotas in 2015, when we will become one of the most heavily productive areas on the planet in the agri sector. It is an ambitious and challenging target from an Irish perspective, particularly given the scale of the agricultural sector here and the scale of emissions associated with it, as well as the limited mitigation potential in the sector. Obviously, it is a challenge. Last year's update from the Environmental Protection Agency showed that Ireland remains on course to comply with its mitigation trajectory in the first half of the compliance period up to 2016. Compliance in the subsequent years, 2017 to 2020, is more challenging. There will need to be a range of legislative issues and policy responses to deal with the scale of that challenge.
In respect of the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, I met Dr. Rajendra Pachouri when he was here in 2012. In recent weeks, the IPCC issued the second and third instalments of the fifth assessment report. These publications are to be welcomed and I expect that they will have an important bearing on international climate change negotiations and on a new climate treaty by the end of 2015. No more than the comments of former President Robinson, these reports are a stark reminder of the challenges facing humanity vis-à-vis the climate change issue. The latest IPCC working group report assesses mitigation options for different sectors of the economy, including energy supply, transport, human settlements, urbanisation and planning, agriculture and forestry. It highlights that international co-operation is required to effectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on the scale required and to address other climate change issues. It tells us that in the years 2000 to 2010, total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were the highest in human history, with carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry contributing 78% of that total. Continued greenhouse gas emissions at current levels are now projected to increase the global mean surface temperature from 3.7 to 4.8 above pre-industrial levels, which is far short of the 2 target that needs to be achieved. The report makes it clear that very significant efforts are both necessary and challenging. That is what Ireland and our European colleagues are working hard to achieve in the context of the international negotiations aimed at reaching a global agreement in 2015.
Deputy Adams will be aware that the previous IPCC working group report published at the end of March last focused on climate adaptation. It identified vulnerable people, industries and ecosystems around the world. It made a strong case that governments, citizens and businesses can decrease emissions by taking smart actions. Indeed, that is the focus of Ireland's strategy for climate mitigation and adaptation. That IPCC report draws on a wide body of research and analysis from scientists all over the world, including from Ireland. It is based on robust scientific evidence and has an important role in informing governments about the nature, extent and causes of global warming and in pointing out the current and expected future impacts of climate change on our planet.
For our part, we are fully engaged with the EU and at international level and are concerned to see that we make progress towards a global agreement by the end of 2015. We have a particular interest in the report's analysis of food security. We are proud to have one of the most carbon-efficient agriculture sectors in the world and we are to the forefront in the EU in making the case that sustainable food production has to be a primary consideration in developing a global approach to climate change mitigation.
In terms of our position on climate change, we will outline our approach to climate mitigation and adaptation in the near future, following the publication of the Bill. As I said earlier, former President Robinson's remarks are quite stark. There is more information available with regard to the longer term but when the Bill is published, we can have an engagement here and a proper interaction in the House on many of these issues.
The point is that even if there were not these international warnings from impeccable sources bringing together all of the available scientific knowledge, our own experience would tell us there is a problem. Valentia Observatory in County Kerry recorded 33.25 inches of rain in December, January and February. That was 183% of what is normal. That is clearly a huge increase. In March, there was two and a half times the normal amount of rainfall for that month. I am sure the Taoiseach has visited some of the coastal areas affected - including Cork City, Limerick and right along that necklace of little harbours and ports - and seen the way that they were battered. We know that oceans have warmed, the amount of ice and snow has diminished, sea levels have risen and the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased.
The first person I ever heard talking about this was the former Vice President of the United States, Mr. Al Gore, approximately ten years ago. At the time, what he was saying was dismissed. He prepared a really learned, knowledgeable and compelling treatise on this entire issue and, like former President Mary Robinson who has also been championing this cause, he has proven to be right. The question is, what the Government is doing about it. What is the Government doing to bring forward a comprehensive strategy on energy?
We still have not got a publication date for the Green Paper. I listened intently for such a date but the nearest the Taoiseach came to it was to say "in the near future". I asked if the climate change committee discussed the report of the international panel on climate change. Has the Taoiseach sat down and discussed it? We must not only learn from our own experience on this island but also pick up on all of these warnings. We must then take pre-emptive strategic measures to protect the environment of this island, and the planet generally, for future generations. Has the climate change committee discussed the IPCC's report?
No, it has not, but I assume it will do so at its next meeting. As I understand it, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has completed the Bill which will be published very shortly. I expect it will go to Cabinet at the next meeting. The European Council did discuss the 2030 climate and energy framework. Obviously, Ireland recognises the basis of the proposed targets set out in the European Commission's communications, including a 40% reduction in EU level greenhouse gas emissions and a proposed EU-wide 27% target for renewable energy by 2030. We need to have substantial and accurate information on which to base such decisions.
Particular account must be taken of our agricultural output and productivity, which is clearly set out in the Commission's communication. During the discussions, President Van Rompuy specifically articulated that, which is an important development from Ireland's perspective.
I saw at first hand the damage caused by mountainous seas off the west coast during that period of storms which ranged from force eight to 11. Beaches that had been there for a few millennia were washed away, including sand dunes and land, and much damage was inflicted as a result. The Government has tried to respond to that in so far as possible, given the limited resources we have. It was done through local authorities, the Office of Public Works and the co-ordination unit dealing with emergency responses.
I was in Galway shortly after the major floods and saw the ferocious power of water flowing out of the Corrib to the Atlantic. When it met with a tide that was 20 feet higher than normal, it backed up to the city. Even if exceptional flood defences are put in, it takes proper planning and a considerable financial injection to get it right. It has worked in places around the country, such as Clonmel, where flood defences have been put in place in recent years.
The argument that is now raging worldwide concerning major countries, such as China and others in the Far East, where significant decisions are being taken to change the ways of the past, also impacts on us here. We do not have all the data one needs concerning wave or tidal power. There are test sites off Clare and Annagh Head on the west coast. There are difficulties and challenges arising from dealing with renewable wind energy, both offshore and onshore, in addition to the legitimate right of people to deal with such matters.
In the context of the current crisis in Ukraine, the European Council meeting discussed the supply of Russian gas to eastern European countries. When their leaders speak about their complete dependence on that fuel for so many things, it changes the nature of the discussion abruptly. That is why the European Council decided on an expansion of the opportunity from the Iberian peninsula, which has a totally co-ordinated market from Spain and Portugal and around the Pyrenees to France and other areas on the southern corridor from Ukraine. In the southern Mediterranean region there are other opportunities for gas to be supplied, thus not being dependent upon Russia. The question was also raised about liquified natural gas being supplied because the United States will become independent in its energy requirements within a few years.
For our part, we want to measure up in the best way we can. We have to make changes that are not always easy to comply with, which is a challenge. We have potential, given the current level of agricultural production and where it can rise to. As an island nation, we must export the vast majority of what we produce. The structure of the agri-sector is such that there is very little mitigation one can do in the context of reducing that sector's emissions. If we do not supply that high quality food from a base of high integrity then it will be supplied from other quarters, albeit perhaps of a lesser standard. That is an important issue for jobs, the economy and the integrity of the food we produce.
While I thank the Deputy for his questions, which are all relevant, I do not have all the answers. We want, and are willing, to play our part as a member of the European team now that we can have an impact on climate change in a way that is for everybody's benefit. I take the Deputy's opening point about former President Robinson.
The people at the Marine Institute can track wild salmon going back out into the Atlantic for two years because of the angle of refracted light as they are now chipped, yet the mortality rate is very high. It is not because of driftnet or draughtnet fishing because that is gone, so we must determine the reason for that mortality rate. My information is that if the temperature of the Gulf Stream rose a very small amount, the entire traditional Atlantic salmon stock would have to move 1,000 miles north. This matter was raised at the European Council meeting a few years ago when people pointed out the emergence of land in Greenland which had been covered in ice for thousands of years.
I remember that when I was much younger I read The Snows of Kilimanjaro by Hemingway. A number of years ago, I had an opportunity to climb Mount Kilimanjaro and people said then that all of this would be gone by 2015 or 2020. It is disappearing at that rate but this is an issue for Ireland as well as every other country.
Visiting primary schools around the country, I see young children getting involved in the greening of the economy. They have an understanding of how fragile the entire system is and how everybody can make a contribution, that we did not have at their age.
The Government will produce the Bill and let us debate it then. In playing our part, we will make our decisions based on being part of the European Union, while taking into account how important the agri-sector is for us as a country.
May I ask a supplementary question?
I am sorry but Deputy Higgins has a question on the same topic, as does Deputy Boyd Barrett. I call Deputy Higgins.
The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has intensified the debate on climate change around the world. Does the Taoiseach agree that in Ireland that debate is intensifying now because it is becoming clear that it is not just the poorest of the poor in far away places who have suffered disproportionately from climate change and weather-related events? In many cases, they do not have the resources to protect themselves, particularly in exposed coastal and other areas.
Climate change has come to our shores. While it was denied by some before, it is generally accepted that human activity is a huge factor here. Notably, it is the impact of large-scale production by big business, driven by profits. Very dirty industries cut corners to make private returns. There is huge burning of fossil fuels at terrible cost to eco-systems and the environment.
Does the Taoiseach agree that in terms of finding the alternative strategy needed to reduce sharply fossil fuel burning in Ireland as a contribution to what must be done worldwide, the Government has made a complete mess of things by permitting a scramble by big business nationally to set up wind farms on an inappropriate scale, driven by private profit? Is it any wonder that we have huge community resistance as evidenced by the thousands who were outside Leinster House today. The Government has allowed the critical need to move to renewable sources of energy and alternatives to fossil burning, including wind energy, to be highjacked by elements in the industry which put their businesses above communities and everything else, including the environment, driven by commercial interests.
Has the Taoiseach learned nothing from the catastrophe visited on our society by developer-led housing and planning over the last 30 to 40 years? The Taoiseach has been in the Dáil for 30 years and seen it blow by blow. We had Fianna Fáil and a good raft of Fine Gael local authority members, driven by speculator-led pressure, making entirely inappropriate and wrong rezoning decisions to allow housing development in the wrong areas, including flood plains and unsustainable locations, simply to satisfy the lust for profit of the people they were representing. The Taoiseach is allowing it to happen again in the context of the serious matter of the need to produce a national plan to move from fossil fuel burning to renewable fuels which do not pollute the environment. Has the Taoiseach learned nothing from the housing bubble and crash which were also the result of allowing commercial, for-profit interests to drive what happened in housing and planning?
Does the Taoiseach agree that he must organise an emergency meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change? The sub-committee should place an immediate moratorium on developments which are being pushed through by major private business interests in their own interests. There should also be a moratorium on the overground pylons. We should then conduct - to begin with - a deep, extensive and honest debate nationally on how the alternative to fossil fuel burning and pollution can be advanced in the interests of the environment primarily as well as in the interests of the community and the human beings feeling the impact of the pressure from private sources. Does the Taoiseach agree that such a debate is necessary and that it should be open, honest and well informed?
There should be a cost-benefit analysis of every proposal that is made. Industry is able to use, abuse and twist environmental language to cover up its real intentions and the fact that much of what it is doing will not result in a huge benefit for the environment. Agriculture is a very important industry for our people. Does the Taoiseach agree that we must discuss agriculture and climate change to ensure that we have methods of agricultural production which do not add to the problem, reduce emissions and keep sustainable communities on the land in rural Ireland, which is under a great deal of pressure?
There is a need for a radical rethink and a complete redirection of policy. The crucial issue of moving from the destruction of our environment by fossil fuels driven by the oil and petrol companies should not be put in the hands of companies which are their mirror image and also interested simply in private gain and profit. It is not the way to go and will have disastrous consequences. It will, rightly, be rejected by people.
I agree with Deputy Higgins that the debate has intensified and come close to us here. There is evidence before our eyes of a change in weather patterns and climate over the last years. It is true to say that we are burning €6 billion to €7 billion of imported fossil fuels and must discuss and decide on alternatives to that. I know the test site off Annagh Head in north Mayo and the prototypes which will be tested at a location in County Clare facing the open Atlantic. If they can stand up to that, so much the better. When the Deputy says wind farms are all about private profits, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has pointed out the inability to conclude a deal with Britain on sale and export of energy directly into the British market. That does not mean we are not intent on achieving our own targets here with wind turbines.
Oral hearings are taking place in Ballina now on the developments by Coillte and Bord na Móna on cutaway bogs for wind turbines for electricity generation. That is not-for-profit work in the local community in the sense of the scale of the areas involved. It remains to be seen in the context of the debate the Deputy mentions how the oral hearings will conclude and what the end result is. While I support the generation of renewable energy by wind both offshore and onshore, there is a legitimate argument for listening to diverse views. There must be an element of community gain in any of these things. Where a farmer has a wind turbine that drives his machinery and the electrical equipment on his farm, it is to be commended. Landowners have handed over site locations for turbines for electricity generation and are being compensated on an annual basis following a planning process which included oral hearings. There has been a gain from that process. The major turbine at Dundalk Institute of Technology is located in a well-populated area and makes a contribution to reducing the extent of the fossil fuel requirement to meet the energy needs of the complex.
I disagree with the Deputy that the explosion of property development in the country was about profit interests. It was stimulated in many cases by greed.
The rush to construct blocks and concrete in places where they never should have been was part of the veneer of so-called endless wealth in the tiger years. There were incorrect rezonings during that period. There are houses standing on flood plains and people who cannot insure their homes because of what has happened. It is a lesson Ireland learned to its cost.
It is not a question of calling an emergency meeting of the Cabinet committee on climate change. The committee does not have the authority to put a moratorium on development. There is an independent planning process, as the Deputy is well aware. These are matters which must be discussed in the context of Ireland's contribution to the overall European Union targets. The Cabinet committee will meet on the Monday after Easter week to consider some of these issues.
Agencies are not right about everything every time and there is a need to engage with communities. I recently attended the launch of the Community Futures programme in the west, a concept that came from Scotland. It involves everyone in a community or parish, be it urban or rural, being asked for their views, whether extreme or not, before an assessment is done of what is in the community's best interests. Community gain is a concept that has to be developed and pursued so that people are able to see the benefit of their acceptance of a particular type of development, whatever it might be. Such acceptance can be hard to achieve because it is often only over a period of time that the gain for the community and its people becomes obvious. That is not to say all the precise locations pinpointed by agencies are the right ones. That is why there must be an evaluation of what is in the best interests of communities. As I said, I do not propose to call an emergency meeting of the committee. It will meet on the first day after the Easter recess and we will discuss the issues at hand.
I am not sure what to make of the Deputy's analysis of the future of agriculture. He seems to be more or less saying we should keep the cattle on the land and go back to where we were. The Deputy is well aware of the credibility and integrity of the Irish agricultural production system and the €9 billion or €10 billion of high quality exports that are produced every year. There is no going back; it is forward all the way. The question is how to manage the challenge of feeding more people to the highest standard in the context of the challenge posed by the emissions produced by the agricultural sector. This is a particular issue for Ireland, as is recognised by Europe. I hope the discussions will centre in a reasonable and practical fashion on how we can achieve that balance between increased production of high quality food, which requires an increased agri herd, with the requirement to reduce emissions.
I hope we all agree - certainly, everyone claims to agree - that climate change is an urgent priority throughout the world which requires us, without delay, to find ways of reducing carbon emissions and developing renewable and genuinely sustainable - the key word is "sustainable" - energy sources. The flooding, extreme weather events and desertification we are seeing in locations across the globe are real and serious problems.
These issues require to be addressed with urgency, but it is clear we are getting it wrong in this country. The scale of the protest we saw today is evidence of how the Government has got it wrong. It also points to the mistrust that exists in regard to some of the prime movers in these matters, people who claim they are trying to deal with climate change and promote sustainable energy production but whom local communities view as merely seeking a profit at their expense on the basis of dubious and spurious environmental arguments and without any serious evidence for the environmental benefit of what they are seeking to do. The thousands of people who came out today are saying there is no robust debate on these issues and no serious analysis regarding the benefits or otherwise of industrial-scale wind farms.
I do not know all the arguments for and against wind energy, but a very credible case is being put forward in respect of the volatility of wind generation, the cost consequent on that volatility of having to provide backup systems based on other energy sources, the amount of carbon emitted in the erection of these constructions, the transport costs and so on. When one adds it all together, there is a negligible gain in terms of reducing CO2 emissions compared with other renewable energy resources. For example, BW Energy has produced a report showing that taking just one action, namely, converting Moneypoint to biomass - at a cost of €350 million, or one tenth of the planned investment in wind energy - would be sufficient to meet our 2020 targets. There may be people who wish to dispute that claim but, if it is true, why the hell are we talking about building massive wind farms across the midlands?
These matters require serious discussion, but it has not happened thus far. We are going to have an issue in Dublin soon with the Array project, whereby one of the largest wind farms in the world has been proposed for development a few kilometres off the coast of Dublin Bay. Where is the cost-benefit analysis of this project? How will it affect the bay as amenity and for tourism purposes? Will there be a gain in terms of security of supply? Will there be a benefit in respect of climate change? These issues have not been discussed and no evidence has been put forward. Moreover, it is a cause for great concern that protestors are pointing to the reappearance of crony links between some of these developers and the political establishment. For instance, the former national director of elections for Fine Gael is one of the main movers behind Element Power. The former national secretary of the Labour Party has been accused of having a very serious conflict of interest.
This is Question Time. The Deputy cannot make speeches.
I am asking the Taoiseach-----
What does the head of such-and-such a company have to do with the question the Deputy has tabled? Will he put a question to the Taoiseach? There are only three minutes remaining.
I am asking a question. The Ceann Comhairle did not interrupt any other speaker.
With great respect, the Deputy is going off on a rant.
You did not interrupt anyone else who did exactly the same thing, which is just typical.
Do not feel hard done by, for God's sake.
You do it every time, without fail.
If the Deputy sticks by the rules, I will not interfere with him.
There is concern regarding conflicts of interest on the part of people involved in promoting these projects and the crossover between semi-State agencies like the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and the private companies of some of the key personnel involved. These are serious issues given what happened during the property boom, and they must be debated.
We should also discuss and engage in serious analysis of other areas.
The Deputy should put his question.
I am asking the Taoiseach how he proposes to respond to the people calling for that robust analysis and for these projects to be put on hold until there has been a cost-benefit analysis of the environmental and economic gain and to ensure protection of communities and public participation in these debates. The Taoiseach has not as yet convinced anybody that he is taking this matter seriously or that there is even joined up thinking in terms of the mix of renewables we need to develop.
Many people are saying that we should not be focused on only one area and that a mix of renewables is needed. What consideration is being given to hydro, geothermal, wave, current and solar energy? How this mix will be used and who will control it? Will this be done at local level by communities or by large industrial corporations, including multinationals and so on? These are serious questions and people are not being given answers they can believe. The Taoiseach and the sub-committee have a responsibility to come up with a plan for a national informed debate on renewable energy and the protection and development of our natural resources.
That is a renewable rant and a renewable speech given with high octane levels of energy. It is the usual stuff from the Deputy.
That is just rubbish. The Taoiseach wittered on for 15 minutes saying nothing.
Please allow the Taoiseach to answer the question.
I agree with the Deputy that climate change is now a real priority and that there is a need for a real and genuine discussion on sustainable energy and what that means. His comment in regard to the expansion of the deserts speaks for itself.
It is perfectly legitimate to have protest in the country. The scale of any particular protest depends on the issue involved. It is not evidence of getting it wrong but of people's concerns and anxieties, which they are entitled to have heard and followed up on, as they will be.
The Deputy referred to the major energy facility at Moneypoint. These are matters that have to be discussed.
Have they been discussed?
On my way here the other day I passed the turbines off the Wicklow coast, which, while small in number, appeared to be turning. Deputy Boyd Barrett also mentioned Dublin Bay but failed to mention shale gas, which is another issue I am sure he will not want to discuss.
It certainly does not contribute to reducing CO2 emissions.
The Deputy also mentioned solar, geothermal, hydro and wind energy, but did not mention fracking. I am sure he would like if that became Government policy such that there would be mass protest countrywide.
People are already protesting.
If we are to have a discussion, let us discuss all the mix. The Deputy and I know people whose houses are heated by solar energy, which does not require bright sunshine every day. Geothermal energy is expensive but appears to work exceptionally well for those who have the financial resources to avail of it. Hydro energy is an issue in a number of small places around the country.
In regard to the Deputy's reference to pumped storage as an alternative backup for wind, there are a raft of objections to this in the context of the use of fresh water or sea water to create the reservoir in the first instance. Another alternative is wind energy, inshore and offshore. These are all sectors that we have to look at. Others internationally tell us we are way behind the curve in terms of making decisions about these things, be that Denmark which is one of the principal suppliers of wind or Scotland which has made significant advances in the IT area in the context of renewable energy.
I can assure Deputies Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and others that we will have these discussions. They will be broad and comprehensive and the evidence required by them, in so far as it is available, will be produced in this House and at the relevant Oireachtas committees so that people will know the scale of challenges that we face and what the best decisions are in the interests of everybody.
Writtens Answers follow Adjournment.