Micheál Martin
Ceist:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Spain; the meetings that were held; and the issues that were discussed and the response that he received. [26549/18]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Micheál Martin
Ceist:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to or met the Italian Prime Minister regarding Brexit or other issues. [26550/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:3. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Spain. [26615/18]
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:4. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the Dutch Prime Minister in respect of the Brexit process. [26892/18]
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:5. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister. [28053/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I was honoured to be the first EU leader to meet with Pedro Sanchez since his appointment as Prime Minister of Spain when I visited Madrid on 14 June. Ireland and Spain have a long history of excellent bilateral relations and our discussions were especially friendly and constructive.
The Prime Minister and I exchanged views on important issues on the EU agenda, including Brexit, foreign policy issues and bilateral relations. In addition, I briefed him on developments in Ireland, including in respect of the economy, and he briefed me on developments in Spain, including priorities for his incoming Government. He assured me of Spain's strong commitment to the EU, and we agreed that the union should focus on issues that can have a positive impact on the lives of its citizens, including jobs and growth. We both agreed that maintaining an open and rules-based approach to trade is important for Europe’s future prosperity.
I briefed Prime Minister Sanchez on Ireland’s concerns regarding Brexit, particularly the vital importance of the backstop arrangement to ensure that there can be no return to a hard border on this island. I stressed that there was now an urgent need to intensify efforts if we are to reach agreement on the withdrawal agreement in good time, securing a period of stability that is of great importance to citizens and enterprises in the EU and, of course, the UK. He offered me his full support and solidarity.
On migration, the Prime Minister briefed me on his Government’s decision to accept migrants on board the Aquarius, and we agreed on the need to find long-term solutions to this issue, which has become such a divisive one within the Union. We agreed that any solution had to include supporting economic and political development in Africa, and creating better life opportunities for people there, especially young people, as well as improving security and governance.
We discussed the Commission’s proposal for the new EU budget and we agreed on the importance of maintaining spending on the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, at its current levels, which is vital for our rural and regional communities. We also agreed on the importance of cohesion spending. We both support a forward-looking budget to meet the challenges of the future, including considering new priorities if they bring added EU value.
My visit to Madrid included an event with the Spanish-Irish business network, where I had the opportunity to engage with our state agencies working in Spain, and representatives from the telecommunications, banking, tourism, and agrifood sectors. I was impressed by the growing and vibrant links between our enterprise sectors.
I have not yet had an opportunity to speak with Prime Minister Conte of Italy. I have written to congratulate him on his appointment and to wish him well in his new role. I look forward to meeting him at the European Council in Brussels later this week.
I have had three scheduled bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands - in Tallinn on 29 September, in Dublin on 6 December and, most recently, in Brussels on 22 March. I have previously reported to the House in detail on those meetings. I also meet Prime Minister Rutte at formal and informal meetings of the European Council, including those in June, October, November and December of last year, and February, March and May this year. We will meet again later this week. We both attended a meeting of the Nordic-Baltic group prior to the European Council last October, and an informal dinner hosted by Prime Minister Michel in Brussels in February. Ireland and the Netherlands are like minded on many EU issues, and my exchanges with Prime Minister Rutte are always open and constructive. Prime Minister Rutte has been strongly supportive of Ireland’s position and we are together in our wish to see a comprehensive and ambitious future relationship with the UK, particularly in the area of trade.
I tabled two questions regarding the Prime Minister of Spain and the Prime Minister of Italy. On 12 December 2017, the Government stated that phase 2 Brexit talks would be suspended if there was any backsliding by the United Kingdom in respect of the backstop text. Since then, the Taoiseach has said on a number of occasions that they have, indeed, been backsliding. In recent days he said that no progress had been made in turning the backstop into a legal text. Can the Taoiseach confirm his statement at the weekend that he believed there had been no progress on the backstop text? Given that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have spent months demanding progress by June, can the Taoiseach outline how he reconciles this with the fact that there is no consequence whatsoever for the backsliding? The Tánaiste said if there was no agreement or some progress, by June, it was questionable whether there would be agreement at all on the issue. While we see no alternative to the approach which the Council will take on Friday, it has badly exposed the tough talking of our Government as overhyped and more focused on headlines than substance. Can he outline what initiatives he has planned for the next two months to ensure progress is made before the run-up to the October summit?
It is reported that the Government, along with 11 others, signed a letter which has been criticised today by the French Government because it opposes proposals for a eurozone budget. Had such a budget existed in 2010, there is no doubt that the Portuguese and Irish bailouts would not have happened. It is an essential element of preventing a reoccurrence of the sovereign debt crisis. Why did the Taoiseach agree for Ireland to sign up to such a letter? Ireland should be one of the strongest supporters of the Franco-German initiative on this matter. However, at the first opportunity, we have rowed in behind a counteroffensive. Why?
I refer to the Taoiseach's visit to Spain and wish to raise the ongoing political crisis in Catalonia. Did the Taoiseach raise the issue with the new Spanish Prime Minister? The silence from many European states has been deafening when it comes to condemnation of political repression in Catalonia, which has been orchestrated mainly by the Spanish Government. There are now nine political prisoners jailed and awaiting trial for so-called rebellion for organising last year's independence referendum. In Germany, an extradition warrant for the former President, Carles Puigdemont, was declined because the court decided there was no evidence of any form of violence by the organiser of the referendum and, in Belgium, we had the bizarre spectacle of prosecutors urging a court to throw out the warrant request for two former Catalan Ministers. The position that political repression in Catalonia is an internal matter for Spain is no longer a practical way of moving forward. The Government needs to condemn the Spanish Government for jailing political prisoners and political activists and I sincerely hope the Taoiseach raised concerns about these matters in his recent visit.
ETA recently announced a definitive end to the organisation and created a historic opportunity for the Spanish Government to send a positive signal of its intent to embrace a peace process in that region, which is long overdue. Basque prisoners dispersed throughout Spain need to be brought back home as an initial step in that process. On 10 June, over 175,000 people from across the Basque region formed a 200 km human chain across the country demanding the right of these prisoners to be brought home and that of the people of the Basque region to democratically decide their own future. I am sure whether the Taoiseach is aware of these events. Did he raise them with the Spanish Prime Minister in his recent visit?
We are insulated from the fire that has taken hold in southern Europe as a result of the migration crisis. Spain is now at the centre of it, along with Italy and Greece. The Taoiseach said that the upcoming Council is centre stage.
In the Taoiseach's conversations with the Spanish Prime Minister, who will be looking at things such as a new government and security arrangements, did Mr. Sánchez give any indication as to what that might mean for us and what we might be required to support? In an earlier question today the Taoiseach cited the fact that we had previously agreed to accept 4,000 programme refugees from Syria in the last iteration of the crisis. Does the Taoiseach believe that, after the upcoming meetings, we will be looking to increase our intake of refugees as part of the overall management of this crisis and not leave everything on the shoulders of Spain, Greece and Italy?
With regard to the Dutch Prime Minister, it is true we are close and, as I understand it, an informal relationship is developing, not just with the Dutch Government but also between the Scandinavian governments, the Baltic states and ourselves as an antidote to the potential future departure of Britain from the EU. Can the Taoiseach tell me if the Dutch Prime Minister has indicated, or is there collective work on, any kind of informal meetings with such a grouping, either meeting together in advance of or separate to a European Council meeting so that it would take on some sort of shape other than just a media notion? Have there been any sort of informal approaches to how we could work with such states within the Union in a collaborative way?
Two issues will dominate the upcoming European Council meeting and we will have a chance to deal with them tomorrow in statements. Those are the issues of migration and Brexit. We had assumed up to relatively recently that the Brexit issue would be the definitive one. It may well be eclipsed now by migration. On the strong words expressed in this House last week by the President of the European Commission, does the Taoiseach remain confident that support for Ireland is solid? I am hearing reports from Brussels that the so called Visegrad group of countries - Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary - is suggesting that a deal on trade is very important and might be more important to their interests than any issue in Ireland. It would be interesting to hear the Taoiseach's view on that.
We were supposed to have a definitive decision on the Irish Border issue for this Council meeting. I expressed my concerns for some months now that this may well be fudged again and that we would be in a difficult position in the run up to the October Council. We are, however, where we are and we can only hope that all member states have a clear line supporting the Taoiseach to ensure that we too are crystal clear that there can be no ongoing trading relations or no long-term deal until these matters are resolved.
I address the issue of migration. I presume the Taoiseach expressed congratulations to Prime Minister Sánchez on accepting a migrant boat into Spanish ports when it was rejected by Italy and Malta. What did the Taoiseach suggest that Ireland, in concrete terms, could do to address the European problem with migration?
On the issue of Brexit, the Border, the backstop and all that, last week I asked President Juncker whether we could trust him and the European Union on this issue. He looked slightly annoyed but shouted "yes", that we could trust them, across the Chamber. Is the Taoiseach fully confident that the European Union, if negotiations fail and there is no agreement with the UK, is not going to protect the Single Market and insist that some sort of Border is put in place?
I ask that because while I do not trust Mrs. Theresa May one inch and I find her Little Englander, xenophobic nationalism obnoxious in the extreme, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that passed today in the Houses of Parliament, and this has not been mentioned in any media discourse, actually has legal provisions saying that there will be no Border. Section 17 of the Act says that after negotiations, regardless of the outcome of those negotiations, there will be no customs posts, no Border checks, no random stopping of cars or vehicles etc. There will be no Border. It is absolutely spelt out in the EU (Withdrawal) Act and that is law now in Britain. They can of course change the law and I do not trust them but at least it is in the law and it has been passed by the British Houses of Parliament. Where is the guarantee from the European Union?
That is no guarantee either.
At least it is legal. It now has legal force. The law will have to be changed to impose a Border. That is obviously because of the pressure from this country, within Britain and from all sorts of forces but it is now translated into law. That is binding on the British Government.
The Deputy is running out of time.
Where is the binding obligation on the European Union to hold the line on the assurances that it has given that there will not be a Border?
In the Taoiseach's discussions with the Spanish Prime Minister, did he discuss the issue of Palestine and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza which takes on more importance now that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, is saying that it does not have money to sustain its aid and education programmes in Gaza and the West Bank?
I call the Taoiseach and he can take four minutes on his response.
It is important to say, and I have said it before, that the Brexit negotiations are dynamic and things change week on week, so we have to make judgment calls week on week as to what is the right approach to take. It is my judgment, and the Tánaiste's, currently that stalling the talks would not be the right approach. What happens invariably when walking out of talks is that sooner or later there is a need to walk back in again. It is our view that what is required now is that we intensify the talks and that is what we expect to happen so that we can come to an agreement in October. As Deputies will know, the withdrawal agreement has to be ratified both by the UK Parliament and the European Parliament and we need those few months between the end of October and end of March to make sure that agreement is ratified. I am also confident that the European Parliament will not ratify an agreement that either undermines the integrity of the Single Market or for some reason would leave Ireland adrift.
When the recess comes, I intend to use that period to do some shuttle diplomacy. I have managed to meet bilaterally with many prime ministers, either here in Dublin or in their capital cities, and I intend to use the recess to meet some more, visit some more EU capitals and receive some more people here. We will also be involved in intensifying negotiations through the task force and we will have to continue to step up our contingency planning to prepare for the possibility, however remote, that there may be a no-deal Brexit.
On the eurozone budget issue which Deputy Micheál Martin raised, I am not sure which letter he is referring to but if there was-----
It was in the Financial Times today.
I do not recall signing any such letter.
The Taoiseach did.
I will have to check it out.
It was the finance ministers.
Yes, well, I am not entirely sure which letter that is. There is a group of us that signed letters on the digital Single Market, and a group of us that signed a set of letters a number of months ago-----
It is the eurozone budget.
-----on different proposals but so I am not entirely sure-----
Ireland is one of 12 countries.
I am constantly being interrupted when I try to answer questions.
I am helping the Taoiseach out. Will the Taoiseach answer the question? It is in the Financial Times today. Ireland is one of 12 countries expressing concerns about plans for the eurozone area budget. It is a bit disingenuous for the Taoiseach to say that he does not know.
Deputy Martin is out of order.
I have not read the Financial Times today. I rarely do.
The Taoiseach signed the letter.
There are many letters that we sign as groups of countries.
There are not - not on the eurozone budget.
I am not sure which one this is but, if I am not interrupted, I might be able to explain.
The Taoiseach did the same last week - he should be honest here and a bit more forthcoming to the House when we ask questions.
Will Deputy Micheál Martin please let the Taoiseach answer?
When it comes to a proposal for a eurozone budget, I think the Deputy is referring to the Meseberg Declaration from last week-----
Yes, that is it.
-----when France and Germany jointly prepared a letter where they proposed a eurozone budget. They did not suggest for a second that such a budget would be used for bailouts. It is the section in the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, that they talk about bailouts. It is proposed that the eurozone budget be used for other things and that is one we would have to pay into.
They did propose it.
It is not as the Deputy sees it. It is not suggested that a eurozone budget be used to bail out eurozone countries.
It would be used as a stabilisation tool in respect of any issues that arise.
It is proposed that the ESM would do that. To answer the question I was asked earlier, I am fully confident that the EU 27 have our back.
Each member state knows that I will not agree, nor will the Government, to anything that gives rise to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
I have not heard anything from the Visegrad Group, V4, to give me concern. Deputy Micheál Martin said that that group is keen to negotiate a trade deal with the UK. Ireland would also like to have such a deal, but everyone realises that it will take-----
Deputy Howlin mentioned that matter.
I apologise.
No problem.
I thank Deputy Howlin for letting me answer his question; at least he gives me a chance to answer. I have no particular concerns regarding the V4 group, but I thank the Deputy for alerting me to that. I will make sure to check that out on Thursday and Friday. We also want to have a trade deal with the UK, but if the UK persists with its red-line issues, such as leaving the customs union and the Single Market, we will have to negotiate a new free trade agreement de novo, from scratch, which will take years. No free trade deal has ever been written in a few months; they all take years. If the UK persists with its views on leaving the Single Market and the customs union, a free trade deal will take many years to negotiate. There must be a withdrawal agreement first. I do not see how we could have a trade agreement without having a withdrawal agreement, including the backstop, first. That is my position.
The Basque Country was not discussed. Palestine was not discussed either. Venezuela was discussed, but the Deputy did not mention it so I will not go through it in too much detail.
I am happy to talk about Venezuela.
Catalonia was discussed. I raised the issue, and I get the impression from Prime Minister Sanchez that, given that there is now a new prime minister in Madrid and a new president in Barcelona, there is an opportunity for a rapprochement. I got the sense that the new Spanish Prime Minister wants to arrive at a solution within the constitutional rules of Spain and that a more conciliatory approach will be adopted towards Catalonia.
That is what happens when socialists are involved.
National Risk Assessment
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:6. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach if the issue of biodiversity has been considered for inclusion in the 2018 national risk assessment. [26556/18]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if the issue of biodiversity has been considered for inclusion in the 2018 national risk assessment. [27748/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
As previously indicated, the national risk assessment is an annual exercise, which aims to ensure a broad-based and inclusive debate on the strategic risks facing the country. It focuses on the identification of risks and is not intended to replicate or displace the detailed risk management and mitigation that happens across Departments and agencies in respect of individual risks.
As in previous years, my Department, working with a cross-departmental steering group, prepared the initial draft of this year’s report. The draft also reflects feedback from the open policy debate in April where representatives from business, media, research and education institutions, civil society groups and the public sector were invited to discuss a draft list of risks. Following approval by the Government on 22 May, the draft was laid before the Oireachtas and published for public consultation. The draft report is published and available to read on my Department’s website. The public consultation period closed last week.
The draft report includes some new risks this year, including the impact of social media on public debate and the risk of overheating the economy. Existing risks have also evolved. For example, the risks arising from Brexit have developed significantly and remain prominent. Other risks include international uncertainties around tax and trade, increasing expectations for higher public expenditure, infrastructure constraints, housing supply and affordability problems which persist. As in previous years, risks around climate change and the need for a secure and diverse energy supply present significant challenges for Ireland. They do so in terms of achieving national and international targets, mitigating our emissions and adapting to the effects of a changing climate. The cost of delayed action is discussed as a major factor in this risk.
While biodiversity is not listed as a separate risk in its own right, the potential impact of climate change on our ecosystems is recognised in the climate change section of the draft report. In particular, this section highlights the potential of climate change to cause changes in the distribution and time of lifecycle events of plant and animal species on land and in the oceans. Actions to tackle climate change will help maintain the integrity of our ecosystems and, therefore, ensure the natural biodiversity present in these ecosystems is protected. The draft report also highlights the need to invest in new economic opportunities in the bioeconomy, which recognises environmental sustainability, including biodiversity, as a core principle.
Finally, the report also notes the need to decouple economic growth from adding to environmental pressures such as climate change and declining biodiversity. Following the conclusion of the public consultation stage last week, the list of strategic risks and the 2018 report will be finalised and published in July. The purpose of the consultation is to encourage debate on strategic risks, and the views of Oireachtas Members are a welcome input to that discussion.
I asked that the risk to biodiversity be included in our debate on this issue last year. I asked that it be included again this year, and I made a submission through the consultation process to that end. In my lifetime we have lost half of the mass of wildlife, including invertebrates, on this planet. Half of the wildlife in the world has disappeared. We are at risk of losing 37 bird species, one third of our bumblebee species, salmon, eel and the freshwater pearl mussel, among other species, in this country. We tend not to notice these because they are small or hidden or take place over time. However, some day we will wake up and realise that all the other risks were minute compared to the risk of humanity inhabiting a planet where the natural world has been destroyed, frayed and torn apart.
Biodiversity is connected to climate, given the loss of habitat due to climate change. Loss of biodiversity will give us an indicator as to how we are doing on climate change. We need to take loss of biodiversity seriously, not for economic reasons but for reasons of our very sanity and of our sense of the world we are living in. We need a national land use plan. We need to stop burning the hills and cutting the hedgerows, which is what the Government is trying to pass legislation on at the moment. Such a move will destroy habitats unnecessarily.
There was a debate earlier about cutting hay, and it was suggested that we bend the rules slightly because the weather is good at the moment. However, the RTÉ "Prime Time" programme last week showed what happens when the rules are bent on matters concerning nature. A risk to biodiversity should be included in the risk assessment. It is one of the big risks we face. Its inclusion might change what Government does and convince it to take the loss of biodiversity seriously.
Words such as "biodiversity" confuse people because they are technical. We are talking about the birds, bees, trees and fish that sustain the ecosystem on which we depend for our survival. That ecosystem is under threat. It is an economic threat in the sense that the depletion of biodiversity means that, among other things, we potentially face huge fines. A diverse environment acts as a carbon sink. Monoculture forestry, for example, is not a good carbon sink compared to forestry made up of native broadleaf species. Deforestation has been a feature of reports over the past five or six years. Despite targets to increase afforestation, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, there is significant evidence of deforestation.
Kelp is an example of where a commitment to biodiversity is not matched by action. BioAtlantis will start cutting down 1,900 hectares of trees of the sea in Bantry Bay, which will destroy biodiversity there. Another example is the fact that the Heritage Bill will extend the cutting season so that hedgerows can be cut down, which will deplete biodiversity as well. The Government is allowing that to happen. All the commitments to deal with climate change are not followed through. In reality, the Government is implementing measures which significantly degrade biodiversity.
I agree with the Green Party. It is correct that the issue of biodiversity should be explicitly addressed in the national risk assessment following the consultation period. The biggest reason for this is that existing commitments under the national biodiversity plan have not been implemented, and the greatest failings are linked directly to a lack of Government co-ordination and inaction. The latest biodiversity plan was published five years ago by the previous Government. Only one quarter of the specific recommendations and commitments in the plan have been implemented. For the 10% of commitments in which no progress has been made, the main issue is a failure of co-ordination in government and to communicate with the public.
The communications failure is interesting, particularly as the objective was public education but the reality was Government brand-building and promotion. The latter is very similar to the approach the Taoiseach has been imposing across Government.
Given the failures in the previous plan, can the Taoiseach indicate if he has taken any steps to ensure that this new plan will be implemented with urgency? I agree with the comments that have been made. We are reliant on non-governmental organisations, NGOs. For example, in the area of beekeeping and preservation of our bees, it is the NGOs that are developing action programmes and plans. In the context of what Deputy Boyd Barrett said regarding broadleaf trees, etc., there is similarly a lack of Government co-ordination and action on that front.
I have often wondered what inspired the Heritage Bill 2016. Who was behind it? In view of the Department from which it originated, it was, from any perspective, quite absurd in the context of its provisions hedge-cutting and so on. What inspired the Minister? Who lobbied? Who was behind it and for what reason? It jars with our overall objectives and agenda in preserving our national biodiversity, which is at risk. We have been warned about this for years and decades. It should be explicitly part of a national risk assessment.
Coming from a rural constituency, the issue of biodiversity is something of which I am very conscious. One of the issues mentioned by Deputy Boyd Barrett, monoculture forestry, is a very clear problem. It is not afforestation for carbon sequestration or anything else. It is basically about the timber industry making maximum profit and being supported in that regard by Government and public policy. We need to see how public policy can be used to enhance biodiversity. One of the examples of that is through the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, which was mentioned earlier.
With respect, I disagree slightly with the Green Party in respect of bending the rules a little. Everything that happens in nature happens when weather changes. By and large, we have to work with the weather we are given. That is what farmers have to do and what they have always traditionally done. However, the intensification of agriculture has brought us in a different direction, and that has caused problems. We need to recognise and work with that. In fairness to most people in the farming community, they want to work with that and come up with solutions, but they need assistance in that respect.
The issue facing us at the moment with the very warm weather is going to be around fodder and whether farmers will be able to get enough. Next winter people will be saying that we had a hot summer and that is the reason we do not have fodder. We will be facing a crisis. Then it will be a wet winter and then it will be something else. I acknowledge it is not something about which the Government can do anything. However, Government policy and public policy have roles to play. The seaweed harvesting that we see going on in Bantry Bay is the equivalent of pouring Roundup into the ocean. That needs to be acknowledged. Again, Government policy is at the root of that problem.
This is a really important matter. One of our problems is that we debate issues such as biodiversity in isolation because they do not run across everything else we do. We do not have joined-up thinking on biodiversity. The national biodiversity action plan, published last year, should have been a wake-up call. It said that 90% of our habitats were in a bad or inadequate position. I refer to our peatlands. We are losing species, bees are under threat and yet we plough on with action plans in other areas without actual joined-up thinking in respect of them. We need to do that.
Deputy Martin Kenny is right to say that we will have another fodder shortage. We import fodder because we have a developmental strategy for agriculture that is not sustainable. We have to decide what the island can sustain - for example, in regard to herd numbers - and what biodiversity we want. We must not set growth as the overarching objective that trumps all else. We need to think long and hard about what the island of Ireland will look like, what species we are determined to protect and what sort of joined-up thinking - running across economic policy, agricultural policy, transport policy and so on - is required to achieve those objectives.
I am glad to see the Minister with responsibility for communications and, I suppose, climate change beside the Taoiseach. I raised a Topical Issue matter last week in which I noted that Ireland came second last - just ahead of Poland - in a Climate Action Network, CAN, report on how countries are meeting their climate change obligations. Ireland came second last out of 28 countries. That is not a good place to be. Of course, climate change enormously affects species, the types and growth of trees and so on. We are nowhere near ready. We are drinking in the last chance saloon as regards our response. It is extremely disappointing that this Government really seems to have long-fingered it in a way that frankly is depressing. Climate change is leading to the enormous variations in the weather and is leading to the increase in the number of storms. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has sought to respond to the storms and the orange and red warnings, we are nonetheless falling considerably behind. The other risk factor in being so poor on climate change is that in a couple of years we potentially face enormous fines for not addressing the issue. That financial risk to the country has not really been factored in or costed in the way that other such risks are.
There are just over ten minutes remaining. Will we give that time over to this particular topic? Otherwise, we will have severely reduced time for the third grouping.
Yes, I am happy with that.
I may have to disappoint the Deputies a little. The latest weather forecast indicates that it is going to rain on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. It may well be the case that the anticipated drought and dry weather-related fodder crisis may not materialise on this occasion.
Damage to biodiversity is not a stand-alone strategic risk in its own right in the current draft. It is covered under the issue of climate change. I am certainly open to including it but a line has to be drawn somewhere. What I will have to do is examine the submissions with my officials . I suspect that when we examine them, we will see 20, 30, 40 or 50 other risks that people think should be included. One does need to draw the line somewhere. However, I am certainly not hostile to including additional risks if the submissions indicate that there is a consensus in favour of adding additional risks, like the risk to biodiversity. I will take account of what was said here today and consider it for the final iteration before it goes to Cabinet.
Regarding biodiversity more generally, the action plan recognises that there is an increased need for funding. That was set out at the launch of the national development plan by the Ministers for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and Finance, Deputies Madigan and Donohoe, and the Minister of State with responsibility for Gaeilge, the Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy McHugh, as well as the State agencies which have been asked to contribute to the drafting of the plan. The plan's main aims are built around the need for all sectors of society to participate if we as a society are to conserve nature. The aims are: to mainstream biodiversity across decision-making in the State; strengthen the knowledge base underpinning work on biodiversity issues; increase public awareness and participation; ensure conservation of biodiversity in the wider countryside; ensure conservation in the marine environment; and expand and improve on the management of protected areas such as national parks, special areas of conservation, SACs, and protected species.
The actions that the Government is taking include: legislation, for example, a Bill on national parks and the introduction of requirements that public bodies consider biodiversity policy in decision-making; actions involving forestry and agriculture, which account for 70% of total land use in the State; measures to reduce the impact of invasive alien species; and commitment to integrating biodiversity in our overseas aid programme.
We recognise that biodiversity and healthy ecosystems have a role to play in underpinning many of the sustainable development goals and stronger partnerships are required in the area of sustainable development and climate finance to ensure that we protect our biodiversity. We are also investing in farmer-led, results-based payment schemes in the Burren, which have been a huge success over many years, and new schemes to protect the endangered hen harrier and the freshwater pearl mussel. Farmers are also paid both for work undertaken and for the delivery of defined environmental objectives, including sustainable management and restoration of high-nature farmland and improvements in water quality and water use efficiency.
Continued investment in farmer-led results-based payment schemes will certainly benefit biodiversity and provide an excellent model for future agri-environmental supports in Ireland and in other countries. We are also investing in research into natural capital accounting and biodiversity financing to inform policy on the management and restoration of our natural capital stocks in Ireland and options for mobilisation of funding to address key biodiversity concerns.
With regard to Bantry, which was raised earlier today, I am told it is a misconception that the licensee would be harvesting vast quantities of kelp from within the bay. Not all of the seaweed in the bay will be harvested. In fact, the total area licensed is 750 ha. This accounts for 0.7% of the bay and is split into five distinct zones. The licence provides for a four-year rotation of the zones with a stand-by zone only to be harvested if the weather is adverse. On average, 175 ha will be subject to harvest annually. The rotation will ensure that only a portion of the bay is harvested each year to strengthen the sustainability of the harvesting plan for the licensed areas in the bay. The harvesting is also subject to strict monitoring, which is required by the approval baseline study. The monitoring programme includes comparisons between harvested and non-harvested areas in each zone for density and height of kelp, together with a quantitative measure of flora and fauna.
It has been suggested there has not been a public consultation on this issue. This is incorrect. The licence originally applied for back in 2009 was processed in the same way as other foreshore lease and licence applications and the normal public consultation procedures were followed but there were no submissions from the public. The public notice was published in the Southern Star and the application documents were on display in Bantry Garda station in December 2009 and January 2010.
It has also been suggested that kelp will not grow back. There are, in fact, 21 peer-reviewed papers on kelp harvesting. They all prove that kelp grows back after harvesting. No paper shows that kelp does not grow back. Indeed, as kelp generates three to six years after harvesting, suggesting, for example, that it is akin to cutting down ancient woodland is not correct. Kelp maturity is reached after six years and on average kelp lives for eight years. There is no root system and it is easily lifted from the sea floor during storms. This is evidenced by the fact that 20% of Ireland's kelp is washed up on our beaches every year.
I ask for Members' co-operation. There are just four minutes left and if we do a round it will take six minutes and then answers and we are running 20 minutes behind.
I propose the two Deputies who tabled the questions go ahead.
Is that agreed? Agreed. They each have 30 seconds for their question.
I thank the leader of Fianna Fáil for that courtesy. We need a land use plan that sets out how we will protect and develop diversity. Critically, if we get it right it will champion human diversity and life in rural Ireland. There was a meeting on Friday night in Leitrim, where communities are utterly despondent and do not see a future. They see their area covered in tree plantations or land being abandoned. We need to stop this and change it. We can do it best by setting ourselves a goal of creating a massive national park, not just in pockets but taking the whole Wild Atlantic way and seeing it as a national park where we protect biodiversity, and in doing that, create tens of thousands of jobs in forestry, tourism, clean energy and high-quality high-value food production where animal welfare comes first. What we need is a quantum leap and not just a tweak in the existing system. We should start with a tenfold increase in the budget for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is a Cinderella in the Irish public service. It does not have the resources we need. Put this into the plan and scale up the thinking on biodiversity because that is the answer to rural Ireland's future as much as anything else.
I also thank Deputy Micheál Martin. The people in west Cork will say very differently, in that the boxes were ticked but it was not a real consultation as very few people actually knew what was happening and what was proposed. We do not know what the impact of the cutting down of kelp may be, but it is certainly a spawning ground for many marine species and we do not know what the damage could be to those fish that spawn in those kelp fields. This is why people are very opposed to the harvesting commencing, particularly in advance of the judicial review.
The Taoiseach did not respond on the Heritage Bill 2016, which runs completely against our commitment to maintaining biodiversity. It allows the cutting down of hedgerows, which are critical for sustaining biodiversity. Scrub, hedgerows and wild growth are absolutely critical from a climate change point of view and a biodiversity point of view. The Heritage Bill cuts very much against it.
I call the Taoiseach. Make the best of a minute.
I will do my best, as always. A land use plan is a good idea and we will certainly give it some consideration. The Government and its Departments only have a certain amount of bandwidth to produce any number of plans in any given year but it is certainly something to which I am happy to give consideration. To an extent, the national planning framework does this but certainly not to the extent I know Deputy Eamon Ryan would like.
I have to disagree on the suggestion we make the entire Wild Atlantic Way and entire western seaboard into a national park stretching along the entire coast through to Kerry. I really do not think people living in those counties would like their entire counties turned into national parks. People often criticise planning in Ireland that treats the west of Ireland as if it is an national park and does not bring to it or the western seaboard road infrastructure, broadband and all the things that allow people to participate in economic and social life.
Look at the Burren.
The Burren is a beautiful place, but I am not sure we should turn the entire western seaboard and all of the counties along it into a national park like the Burren. I really do not think that would be welcomed in those counties for obvious reasons. People want to protect their environment but they also want economic opportunities, they want jobs, they want their children to be able to stay living in those areas and they want more people to be able to move into those areas and sustain the schools and all of the social infrastructure.
They go together.
There was no answer on the Heritage Bill.
There are road safety aspects.