Vol. 1045 No. 6
6. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications the way the Government is preparing for COP28; the extent of the State's commitment to loss and damage funding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50246/23]
The purpose of this question is to ask the Minister the way the Government is preparing for COP28 and the extent of the State's commitment to loss and damage funding.
COP28, the annual UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, will take place in Dubai from 30 November to 12 December. Mitigation of and adaptation to the impacts of climate change, climate finance for adaptation and mitigation and loss and damage will be priorities for Ireland during the conference. While public finance remains key, other more innovative sources of finance must also be identified including from the fossil fuel sector in order to support the most vulnerable countries in mitigating and building resilience against climate change.
Throughout this year, Ireland has been committed to delivering recommendations on a loss and damage fund that will serve the most vulnerable countries and communities. The transitional committee on loss and damage, on which Ireland was represented by the Department of Foreign Affairs, has met intensively since March. After a difficult process, there is now a text on the table that is to be formally approved at COP28. Ireland and the EU encourage endorsement by all parties at COP28 of this text.
Ireland is firmly committed to mobilising further finance for loss and damage, including through this new fund, pending formal agreement of the text at COP. We are working with our partners in the EU to plan in this regard. To date, we have demonstrated our commitment to loss and damage finance by pledging finance to initiatives such as the Santiago Network to provide technical assistance on loss and damage, and the Global Shield to assist vulnerable communities to prepare for climate disasters.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. There has been some commentary and critique in relation to the text on loss and damage to be discussed at COP28 in the context of, for example, the role of the World Bank, the extent of the funding and how it may be distributed - in the form of grants versus loans, etc. Is the Minister confident the text will be agreed? It seems apparent that there is significant scope for improvement and that, at best, it will be a compromise. Does the Minister see it as a step in the right direction in the first instance and what are the improvements that the Government will be seeking to make in the time ahead?
I expect it to be approved, and I very much welcome it. Politics always involves compromise, but it is a significant advance which Ireland was very centrally involved in last year at Sharm el-Sheikh in the context of agreeing the principle of a fund and then being on the transitional committee to deliver it. The World Bank is an appropriate vehicle - I said as much at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September - because we need to deliver this quickly. There are immediate needs. The extent of funding has to be best matched by a mosaic of different funding solutions to it, as was set out at Sharm el-Sheikh last year. It cannot be only Exchequer funding because that will not provide the scale of funding that will be required. We need to look at international financing flows, levies from aviation and maritime, reform of the multilateral development banks, carbon taxation and getting the fossil fuel companies to divert investment towards cleaner energy solutions.
The American Government was the only one which expressed a certain concern about the final text. It has since, I am glad to hear, shown approval for it. I expect it will be approved at COP. We have to fund it then and make sure it is up to the task and delivers quickly. I hope it helps the wider negotiations because there are so many different issues we have to address at COP. Loss and damage is critical but it has to be part of an overall solution.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. In fairness, I recognise the part played by him and the Irish officials in advancing the case for loss and damage. That is important.
A further issue has been highlighted from an Irish perspective by environmental NGOs and those working in the climate justice space. The Minister will be aware that the report published by Christian Aid and Trócaire, namely, The Cost of Inaction: Ireland's fair share of Loss & Damage finance, points towards a figure of €1.5 billion out to 2030. The commitment from Government is for €225 million to 2025. Is the Government aware of this report? Is it reassessing Ireland's fair share? Can we expect further commitment?
On the point relating to loss and damage funding not being under the umbrella of Overseas Development Aid, ODA, and the fact that it is dedicated funding, it is welcome that the funding from Ireland will be in the form of grants rather than loans. Will it be secure?
I am glad Deputy O'Rourke referenced the report from Christian Aid and Trócaire. I hosted them in the audiovisual room on Tuesday where they presented their report. I thank the Minister for attending that briefing.
I acknowledge the central role the Minister played at COP27 in landing this loss and damage facility, flawed and all as it might. I praise the work of Irish officials at the transitional committee, particularly Dr. Sinead Walsh. I hope Dr. Walsh does not mind me naming here.
It would be helpful for Members if we could have a detailed briefing - on a cross-party basis - on the outcome of the transitional committee in order that we can all get to grips with the level of detail that is involved, and the level of ambition that we need to set out in terms of loss and damage. I agree with Deputy O'Rourke it cannot be climate mitigation. It cannot be climate adaptation. It cannot be ODA. This needs to be a separate funding stream however we use that mosaic of funding sources.
I was hoping for an update on the Minister's recent attendance at the pre-COP28 meeting. Question No. 22 deals with the matter. Most likely, it will not be reached.
I very much appreciated going to that event hosted by Deputy Ó Cathasaigh. It was useful. There is real urgency. The reason we support the World Bank is because we need to be quick. The former US Vice-President, Al Gore, stated in a good presentation earlier on the summer that there is a €1 billion climate impact event happening every 18 days. It is happening now. It is here and now. However, we have to recognises that the more we invest in mitigation and adaptation, the less we will have to invest in loss and damage. They are connected. They compliment each other. That is why I say we need a mosaic of finance solutions. We need a variety of different financing solutions in mitigation, in adaptation, and in loss and damage. What Ireland continues to say, and will say in Dubai, is what we are really focusing on is to make sure that the investment goes, in particular, to the most vulnerable countries. In climate financing to date, that has not happened. Through our ODA programme, my Department and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Finance, we have a proud record of supplying grant-led, not-tied, locally empowered support. The doubling of our climate finance, which we will deliver the year after next, to €225 million is a not insignificant achievement of which we should be proud. However, we need to go further. One of the best ways of going further is, in the context of the negotiations, looking to get money from the polluters and from global financial flows, because the scale of the financing we need, as was set out in that report, is beyond compare.
7. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications for an update on the energy security review; how it will inform Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50262/23]
Can I have an update on the energy security review and how it will inform Government policy? I understand that a similar question may have been dealt with earlier, but we will delve into the matter a little more.
There was an earlier question. Without being disrespectful to the drafters of the written reply, maybe I gave a similar response to the first question today. I might, if I can, add to that the basic details of it - 28 actions, a series of annex reports, from former Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, Mr. Dermot McCarthy, and from Cambridge Economic Policy Associates, CEPA.
The key recognition is energy security. We could look at one issue, but it is first and foremost about reducing our use of energy. That is the first key priority. Second, it is about switching to renewables. There is a complete connection between meeting our climate targets and providing energy security. They are not contrary or competing; they are very much complementary. The third leg of this table of security we need to create is resilient systems. That means that in the interim period, and it is interim and temporary, we need a short-term storage facility. In a world where we have seen gas pipelines blown up and anchors dragged across others, we need to have a short-term, temporary gas storage facility that is State-led and strategic, not commercial. On the governance aspect, Dermot McCarthy's report is important. It was published in full and showed that there was no lack of motivation, professionalism or real integrity within our agencies and our regulators and so on, but we do need to use it as a review.
I do not believe we have focused sufficient attention historically on either climate or climate security. We need to do that. We do that by changing the number of hours that we might tolerate in terms of loss of load as one example. There is an opportunity to look at the structures we have. We have a regulatory system that was designed very much back in the previous decades. For example, the one reporting line that CRU has is to the Oireachtas committee. While the committee does really important and good work, the Government also needs a clear line of communication and an ability to interact and engage. It is about maintaining the independence of our regulatory system and our markets approach but also about having the ability to co-ordinate the State's strategic response to this great leap we need to make to cleaner energy and a more secure future.
I will hone in on one element, namely, the State-led liquified natural gas, LNG, storage capacity. How will the Minister ensure that the relevant entity and its infrastructure will be fully controlled by the State? My understanding is that it is expected that it could be along the lines of a public private partnership, PPP. We have seen with PPPs across the country that while the intention might have been to have State control, in many instances this has not been the case. When the Minister asks Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, to investigate this, what parameters is he giving it to ensure that the entity will be 100% State-owned? That needs to be the case so that people have trust that this will be a very temporary and only a transitional facility, and also that we have control over what gas is going in there and where that gas is coming from.
The key parameter is the strategic outcome and the security. We want to have a vessel that is there and know it is not being used just to sell gas on. It will be there to provide a continuous level of security and will be operated in a way that gives us that.
In terms of ownership, we need to get the lowest price for the Irish consumer. Without being definitive, maybe we could get a very good lease option on a vessel rather than a purchase option. In those circumstances, we would take the lease option because it is lower cost. I do not think we have to be categoric on the exact mechanism of delivery of the particular piece of infrastructure. It is absolutely strategic, first of all, in respect of our climate targets. We are probably quite unique in this country at the moment in that we are one of the few saying that we are not just going to put in new LNG and see a massive expansion in the use of gas, which has happened in a lot of our neighbouring countries. We are saying we do not want to expand the use of gas. We want to reduce the use of gas, but we recognise that there will be interim days and certain periods when the wind is not blowing when we may have a need for gas just for that particular circumstance. It is about having a strategic approach. It is there for those events, unlikely as they are. It is not there as a commercial facility to sell gas.
If GNI is being tasked with the investigation and examination of this, and I assume the operation of it as well, does the Minister have confidence that it gets the whole area of climate? GNI was giving connections for islanded data centres, which is completely in non-compliance with our climate obligations. The Minister wrote to GNI last year and asked it to stop that. The fact is that he had to ask GNI to stop it, and it is a year down the road and it still not 100% the case. GNI is still connecting thousands upon thousands of homes to the gas network. This concept of reducing the use of gas in order that it is only a transitional resource is not quite within its remit yet. I am wondering whether the Minister has any concerns about whether Government policy in relation to meeting our climate objectives is also a key policy of GNI, and whether it will fulfil the obligations and needs of the Minister and those of the State in this regard.
It absolutely has to be for the future of GNI. It has to see this transition as its own. I spoke at a recent conference and made a comparison, which I think is a useful one. Looking at Bord na Móna, four years ago it found itself in really challenging circumstances. It was legally required to stop the production of peat. It has turned matters around and is probably the most successful, fastest-growing, biggest-investing green company in the country, if not Europe. It is a model for how to transition from brown to green. GNI needs to do the same. It needs to switch towards an area where there are real skills in laying pipes and working with communities in understanding how to deliver energy. District heating, and not gas networks, is where the future is going to be, in my mind. The roll-out of biomethane and anaerobic digestion, where we do get sustainable zero-carbon gas solutions, have to be centre stage. There is lots of work to be done and lots of investments to be made. If GNI does not switch to the low-carbon future, it will not have a future. It is a proud company with excellent executives and brilliant workers. By making the switch, we guarantee the security of the company, as well of the country.
9. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to outline as part of proposals for a floating offshore wind and green H2 policy for Ireland; his Department's plans, if any, to announce suitable designated maritime area plans for the south and west coasts to plan and attract necessary industry investment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50230/23]
I ask the Minister to outline, as part of proposals for a floating offshore wind and green hydrogen policy for Ireland, his Department's plans, if any, to announce suitable designated maritime area plans for the south and west coasts to plan and attract necessary industry investment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
To capitalise on the considerable resource potential of our marine area, Government has adopted a phased approach to offshore renewable energy development in Ireland, with the overarching objective of achieving 5 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by 2030 and a net-zero economy by 2050. Phase one is intended to deliver the maximum competitively procured offshore wind capacity at the earliest feasible deployment stage, with the six most advanced offshore wind projects in Ireland having participated in our first competitive offshore wind auction earlier this year, known as ORESS 1. Phase two aims to procure the remainder of the 5 GW capacity target for 2030 through further competitive ORESS auctions. In line with the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, all future offshore wind developments will be located within designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, established by Government and approved by the Oireachtas.
The final phase of offshore wind deployment is referred to as the future framework. This will establish an evidence-based pathway for developments beyond 2030. Floating offshore wind technology is expected to make an increasingly important contribution towards achieving Ireland’s long-term renewable energy and climate objectives, including with regard to potential export opportunities, and will enable developments to take place off our western and south-western coasts. A future framework policy is currently under development and will be consulted upon in the coming months before publication next spring, contingent on Government approval. This policy will provide an evidence-based framework for the subsequent establishment of future DMAPs for floating offshore wind.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am aware of the south coast offshore renewable energy DMAP proposal published last July. There was a public consultation and a lot of work has gone into it. I commend the Minister on it. Can the Minister outline the timeline for the next DMAPs? When does he envisage that the finalised decisions will be made and published, and his Department sufficiently resourced to deliver on any such timeline?
I do not have the exact detail on the timeline, but I expect it in the coming months. Very shortly, we will set out the designated area and that will be followed by a further auction next year and the year after.
Next year will be the next auction. It is to design them on a rolling, regular basis so that it gives certainty to industry and that we meet the 5 GW targets. What I should have mentioned in my opening response also is a further target of some 2 GW which we are looking to convert from power to energy, without being completely specific in terms of what that exact mechanism might be, to look for industry to come back with innovative proposals, be they for hydrogen, ammonia, energy storage, clever ways of managing curtailment or other energy systems management effected through the use of offshore wind in that light. The next phase has to get us back up to that 5 GW. The four projects in the Irish Sea, if memory serves me, make roughly 4 GW of power. We need to fulfil our immediate target but we do not stop there. We are going towards 30 GW and, in my mind, 70 GW if we really think big and long term, going out into the Atlantic and southern waters. It is the path to that scale of development that we need to get right so we have certainty and predictability. Investment will come when we are not stop-start and when it is just part of a regular, routine process of expansion.
I agree with what the Minister has said with regard to the importance of having certainty to attract investment, and plans as well. Would the Minister agree with me that without our west coast DMAP, for instance, next year, Shannon Foynes Port Company and others are unlikely to secure funding and planning towards port infrastructure in time for the offshore wind industry local content and climate targets? Can the Minister give me any indication as to when he expects to publish the finalised DMAPs for the south coast?
Linked to that, as is included in the original question, what are the Minister's views and plans with respect to floating offshore wind? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but what I have seen involves fixed-bottom structures rather than floating structures. What are his and the Department's thoughts with respect to floating offshore wind? Could he tell me what the situation is with respect to Cork-Bantry? There is no equivalent of the Shannon Estuary economic task force, SEET, report there to pinpoint where investment in DMAPs is needed. Could he talk about that situation as well, or if he does not have the information, could he revert to me later?
Could I ask the Minister by way of a supplementary question the extent to which studies have been undertaken into joint wind and solar energy production centres? This would be with a view to bringing solar energy, insofar as is possible, to a level ensuring that wind energy is near continuous in times of calmness. Is that being studied at the moment? Has it been advanced to a stage where we can quantify exactly what is likely to come from the solar energy farms and how soon? How much evaluation is being done at the moment?
I might answer that question first. It relates to an earlier question about grid connections and the crew looking at our connections policy. There is real potential for us to maximise the existing grid where we do have both solar and wind. They tend not to come at the same time. Windy days are typically cloudier, sunny days less so. It makes real sense to integrate wind and solar, as the Deputy suggested, and optimise the use of the grid.
Going back to Deputy Stanton's question, part of that predictable, regular process was the creation of the new Maritime Area Planning Act, the establishment of MARA and the resourcing of all those agencies. Included in that is that we are on track with the publication last summer of our first southern DMAP, about 900 MW located very much to optimise grid. It could be delivered in two 450 MW chunks or one single 900 MW chunk. We will see what the market delivers on that. There was a nine-week consultation on it which finished just last month. It will be published in Q1 next year and we expect it to be concluded and approved by Government shortly after that. We are on track for the southern waters. That should give real certainty for the second auction results. There are a lot of businesses and developers interested in the area. The biggest constraint is access to environmental data, understanding the subsea, sea floor and below that. As we go towards more regular DMAP systems, the advantage will be that we can provide a lot of the environmental data and de-risk the projects in that respect. That is where we are going to help companies to make investment decisions knowing they are not going to be tripped up on environmental constraint.
10. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications further to Parliamentary Question No. 108 of 15 June 2023 , the details of any engagement his Department, or bodies under the aegis of his Department, has had with Galway City and County Councils in 2023 with regard to the development of their local authority climate action plans, and in particular the preparation of their decarbonising zones; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50116/23]
My question specifically relates to Galway City Council and Galway County Council. What engagement if any has the Minister, his Department or any bodies under its aegis had in respect of the preparation of these plans, in particular the inclusion of decarbonisation zones? The city council did great work and designated an area on the west side as a decarbonisation zone way back in April 2021, over two and a half years ago, yet there has been no further action because of the delay by the Department.
The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 strengthens the role of local authorities for effective climate action. It sets out a statutory requirement for each local authority to prepare a local authority climate action plan.
The local authority climate action plans must be consistent with the most recently approved national climate plan and include both mitigation and adaptation measures. I requested each local authority to begin preparation of their plans on 24 February last. I issued the statutory guidelines to support local authorities in preparing and implementing their local authority climate action plans on 6 March this year. As per the guidelines, each local authority climate action plan must include a decarbonising zone, DZ. A separate annex has been developed to assist local authorities with preparing their decarbonising zones. Once the local authority climate action plans have been approved by each local authority, implementation of the actions listed in the plan, including the DZs, will commence.
While my Department has had no specific, direct engagement with Galway City or County Council in relation to the local authority climate action plans in 2023, I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency engaged with Galway City and County Council regarding their local authority climate action plan at the SEA scoping stage in October this year. Also, the Electricity Supply Board has planned engagement with Arup which is assisting Galway city in the production of an energy master plan for the city and a DZ implementation plan for the west side area.
I have been engaged and have been going to every single council across the country to discuss the climate action plans. I found that very useful. I talked to both management and councillors. One thing I would say as feedback, based on my sense of that, is that they need to be more ambitious in terms of showing leadership. I mentioned climate adaptation earlier and local authorities stepping up in terms of flood protection as part of our adaptation system. That is an example. However, I believe also in mitigation and reduction of emissions. It should not be just about how we manage our street lighting, although that is important, or how we manage our garbage vehicles or other council trucks. They have to think strategically about how their county and their towns and cities can become centres of excellence and can gain from this as an opportunity by showing leadership, thinking big, thinking strategically and thinking about what economic advantage may come from decarbonisation, not just taking a narrow interpretation that it is their own emissions within the council operations. They should think, act and deliver plans that are bigger than that.
I agree with the Minister totally, absolutely. They should show vision and they should lead. That is very difficult when staff are constantly moved, when the county council is seriously underfunded and staff are moved from department to department. As soon as they get any expertise, they are moved off under pressure. There is a serious role for the Government in properly resourcing and treasuring the staff who work for local authorities. I have a different view in respect of top management, however, which has utterly failed to deal with the challenge of climate change.
The Government is also at fault. A specific example of that is the decarbonisation zone. The city council did tremendous work and designated the area back in February 2021. They were hoping to bring out the plan by the end of the year. Then they were told to wait for the guidelines. The guideline came just this year and, interestingly, decarbonisation zones are described as a demonstration and a test for what is possible for decarbonisation and climate action at local and community levels. There are no resources or follow-up. They had to wait for those guidelines to come over two years later.
I agree with the Deputy about the resourcing of local authorities and the need to increase across a whole range of different areas. We have been doing this in the area of climate. We established the four climate action regional offices, CAROs. There may be smaller counties where there might be a total staff in the county of about 300, 400 or 500. That is difficult. Having regional offices with expertise and strength helps. They have been funded to the tune of €10 million. We have also put in new climate community liaison officers and climate development officers in every single council. Those positions have been filled, as I recall, and we are about to roll out further community funding for climate action at community level.
I accept the Deputy's point that on its own this will not be enough, but it is also sometimes about attitude. I have seen with some of the councils I have visited, even within the constrained resources, it is almost more an attitude of mind where this is seen as an opportunity for leadership within the existing resources. They need to be expanded. Others see it, in my mind, as a narrow interpretation of what they could and should do.
The opportunity is also seen in a lot of towns that are starting to embrace this change as an ability, with town centre first, to bring life and economic development back in by defining themselves in this way. It is not just from an environmental perspective but as a better way of life, with the healthier towns and healthier communities that come out of it. I hope some of that attitude across all the employees of the local authorities will be encouraged by the climate action plans.
I hope I am being constructively critical of the city and county councils in Galway, but it is not totally fair. They are under-resourced. They do not have enough staff and the county council is certainly at its wits' end. They are also competing with a model of development that has continued on, and which was there before we declared a climate emergency, with the same absolute consumerism prevalent. We have no balanced regional development. Galway is designated as one of the five cities while Carraroe, i gcroílár na Gaeltachta, is going under with other towns as well. I think also of Kilmaine and Shrule, which are in Mayo. There is a misalignment of policies. When they do something like designate a decarbonisation zone, there is no action from the Government two and half years later. They were waiting on the guidelines. The guidelines put an onerous responsibility on the local authorities to discuss and liaise and to have co-partnership with stakeholders without any indication of what resources would be available. In Galway city we worked without a biodiversity officer until approximately one year ago. The Government tolerated that situation and at local level told us one could not be recruited because of resources. I am not sure where the truth lies but I have a great empathy with the staff on the ground working within the local authorities.
I accept Deputy Connolly's point on central government needing to show greater speed. I also accept the need for resources within our local authorities and we have to continue to review that. I will put one other point back to the Deputy. It is not just about the officials; it is also about the councillors because they are the elected representatives. They are the heart and the leaders within the council. In some of the areas it is not necessarily about financial commitment but about a sense of vision for the future and sometimes making very difficult decisions, for example, in the transport area. We do not need to go much beyond the Deputy's own city and council where that has not been possible. It has been a combination of officials but also councillors. That is not all about financing and resources. It is about being willing to take hard decisions.
Similarly in councils throughout the country, we will need real leadership around how we develop renewable power. In certain counties there is no renewable power and others, rightly, are saying they are taking it all and could we not balance this out. It is in those maps and development plans for the likes of renewable power. It is in the likes of those decisions that cannot be taken at central government level. When I had these debates in the council chambers, I would often say that no Minister for Transport will decide what is the best place for a cycle lane or a bus lane. It has to come from local leadership working with the National Transport Authority, NTA. Sometimes it is the councillors we need to count on. That is a resource we know is there. They have a real key role.
11. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications what measures are being taken to reduce the current wait times, currently in excess of 24 months, on works completing from applications made on free energy upgrades under the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50244/23]
The free energy upgrade scheme is a very valuable scheme for supporting people, especially lower income households, by putting in insulation and helping them reduce costs. It takes some time to process those applications and to give householders the benefit of those schemes. Will the Minister outline the measures that will bring those schemes and deliver them in a more timely manner to needy households?
The better energy warmer homes scheme delivers a range of energy efficiency measures free of charge to households vulnerable to energy poverty. This year's budget of €148.5 million is the highest ever. Increased awareness of the multiple benefits of retrofit and improvements to the warmer home schemes is driving increased levels of demand for the scheme, with more than 20,000 applications received over the period from January 2022 to the end of September this year. The scheme is delivering deeper upgrades with more emissions reductions and energy savings for homeowners. The average cost of upgrades increased to €24,000 in 2023, and these deeper upgrades take a longer time per home to complete. To the end of October this year, more than 4,500 homes have been upgraded. This are already more homes than were completed under the scheme in all of last year. We are on target to upgrade 6,000 homes under the scheme by the end of the year.
The average waiting time from application to completion by quarter 3 of 2023 was just under 20 months. This is a decrease from the average of 26 months for homes completed in 2022. The reduction in wait times follows a range of measures introduced by the Department and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, including enhanced budgets, increased staffing resources in the SEAI, and actions to address supply chain challenges. The SEAI has also established a new contractor panel in September this year, adding seven additional contractors, bringing the total to 36. My officials continue to work with the SEAI to maximise and accelerate the output of free energy upgrades delivered.
I thank the Minister. As he has said, there is quite a strong demand for the scheme, which reflects the need in so many households to carry out the works. It is positive that additional contractors are now involved in it. From dealing with the different applications, I can see that the big issue is more at the processing stage of the application. At this stage it is in the region of ten months to get a BER inspection. That only opens up the opportunity thereafter to get the survey of the different works required. Once they get a hold of the job, there is no major delay from the contractor side of it. Currently, applications are taking in the region of 24 months. That is two winters. It is very hard on a household that cannot afford it. The upfront aspect of it, including getting the BER inspection and the survey done, needs to be prioritised. Will the Minister give an outline on the steps in that aspect of the processing of the application?
I absolutely accept the frustration about the long lead times and particularly around getting the BER to be able to make an application. We must be careful. We are putting significant funding into this and we have put in an additional €150 million. It is not a small investment, it has been massively ramped up and it will continue to become available. I keep reiterating that one of the benefits in this Government having the carbon tax system we do is that we know it is going to increase year on year and that a very large part of that money is going to the warmer homes scheme: 30% goes to social welfare increases to protect the most vulnerable and 55% goes to retrofitting and targeting in particular lower income homes through the warmer homes schemes, for example. I could really see that during the recent budget negotiations. I knew I had that increase in the bank before we even started any negotiations. This gives certainty to the contractors. We were able to deploy those new contractors. They know this business is not going away. They know it will be done systematically. I would love to have all 20,000 houses that have applied done and not just the 6,000, but that is 6,000 homes. It is not an insignificant improvement to the quality of life for the people in every one of those 6,000 homes. It is coming because of this steady, certain and properly financed method we have put in place.
I readily acknowledge the huge improvement it makes for those 6,000 homes and families and that there is substantial funding in place for the scheme. There is great demand for it and it will be very successful when households get the work done. The issue is getting approval and moving through the process.
Getting the BER inspection done can take up to ten months. People who made applications in February of this year have still not had a BER inspection. After that, a survey is needed to determine the extent of works. These steps are clearly under the control of the SEAI and need to be focused on to improve those timelines. Realistically, two winters from when a person makes an application to getting an inspection is very challenging. It is great once the work is done and it is very meaningful, but will the Minister outline if measures can be taken to get a quicker turnaround on the BER inspection and survey to identify the works required and release it to contractors so that people can get the benefit of the substantial funding available?
Has an evaluation been done of the various processes through which the applications have to be examined and the way in which the work is carried out with a view to identifying the snags or difficulties before they become obvious and before they cause serious delays to those who wish to upgrade the BERs of their homes to avail of the benefits of heat retention?
I accept there are sound arguments about the benefits of the scheme. One way to speed up the process is to employ additional contractors. We are up to 36 contractors now. I have also been informed the SEAI has allocated additional staff to the warmer homes scheme, knowing the funding will increase year on year. There has been a major increase this year and there will be a further increase next year. The authority can employ those staff knowing there is a real balance.
The SEAI is understandably worried that it might appear before an Oireachtas committee and there might have been some money inappropriately spent in some way. Given this is a 100% grant, often to private households, the staff in the authority want to ensure the standards are right. That should not and does not preclude us from reducing the ten-month waiting time to get through the process. We have to give the SEAI licence to a certain extent to push further and, while not taking risks, at the same time not to be so risk averse that we end up losing the householder. That is a difficult balancing act. I have been saying to the organisation all the time to go faster, be flexible and be quick, as much as anything else, because that is what we need.
13. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications whether he supports taking waste collection back into public ownership to ensure better environmental management of waste; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50236/23]
The decision to privatise the bin service and charge for all forms of waste management, including recycling and composting, has been an unmitigated disaster from an environmental and cost-of-living standpoint. Will the Minister now commit to legislation to take waste collection back into public ownership?
Local authorities are responsible for municipal waste collection and waste management planning within their functional areas. It is open to any local authority to re-enter the waste collection market as direct service providers if it so chooses, either alongside existing permitted service providers or subject to making arrangements to replace those providers. Under section 60(3) of the Waste Management Act 1996, as Minister, I am precluded from exercising any power or control in relation to the performance by a local authority, in particular circumstances, of a statutory function vested in it.
The section on gov.ie on the structure of the household waste collection market gives an analysis of the impacts of moving from side-by-side competition to a franchise market structure. It should be noted this study does not take account of the costs associated with local authorities acquiring existing customer share or those associated with investing in the necessary collection infrastructure or staff costs.
I do not know if anyone has told the Minister this before, but he is in the Government so he can change the law. There is a majority in the Dáil. It can never be an answer to a question to say something cannot be done because it is not in the law. Evidently, the law can be changed and it needs to be changed to provide for public ownership and the re-municipalisation of waste collection throughout the country.
The statistics speak for themselves. According to the EPA, the municipal waste generation trend in quantity terms is going in the wrong direction and increasing steadily. Recycling levels have plateaued since 2010, at 41%, well below the EU average of 49% and below the EU target for Ireland of 55%, which is supposed to be reached by 2025. In Germany, where waste collection is municipalised, 70% is recycled. The privatisation of the bin service, which the socialist left were the only ones to fight tooth and nail against in the early 2000s, is to blame for the fact that one third of Irish households still do not have a brown bin despite this being an EU requirement for the end of this year.
The Deputy is right. In government, we can pass legislation, as could this House. This House, in the end, is the final arbiter. We have to have the numbers in the House. That is our democratic system.
We have a waste action plan containing some 200 actions, and I see that as a central focus of what I and my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, want to deliver. As the Deputy says, we need to dramatically enhance our recycling levels, reduce the amount of waste and create a more circular economy. That is what those 200 actions do. It emphasises a polluter pays and producer responsibility in a variety of different measures. The most totemic will be the introduction of the deposit refund scheme in the next two or three months. There are a range of other measures, particularly with the business community, placing the responsibility on it to reduce waste.
Our efforts and key focus are on those 200 actions. There is nothing stopping local authorities coming back into the sector. I have yet to meet a local authority that wants to do so. I have spoken to every single council in the country about a variety of environmental and other issues and they are not coming back to me saying they want to see a transfer back towards a municipal-led model.
Part of the problem is we have disempowered local authorities and we still have councils where councillors vote consistently to lower property taxes. We could actually start thinking about reversing that, strengthening local authorities and building up local government. Household and other charges over the years have become so politically unpalatable that they have undermined local government and the ability for us to take the sort of a action the Deputy refers to regarding changing our waste management system.
I am not sure if the Minister agrees or disagrees that the privatisation of waste collection has been a disaster. It has been a disaster for households faced with bills that go up and up, north of €300 now, while the likes of Greyhound, Panda and City Bin are making millions of euro in profits and are domiciled offshore so that they do not have to pay any tax on it. It has also been a disaster in terms of reducing the amount of waste we are collecting and increasing the percentage of that waste that gets recycled.
If we are serious about reducing waste, and that is the main thing we need to do, we need a mind shift away from blaming ordinary people, who have no choice about much of the packaging they get, and going to the root cause, which is the polluters. These are not ordinary households in the main but the big businesses that produce all the packaging to make their lives easier and to make their production processes simpler, cheaper and faster. This means bans on unnecessary and non-recyclable packaging and financial penalties to force companies to pay the full cost of recycling the waste they produce.
Momentum is building for the re-municipalisation of waste collection. I commend the work of councillors on Dublin City Council. My colleague Daithí Doolan has been working with unions. They have a working group to identify the barriers to this and they gave a presentation in the audiovisual room. We have now established an Oireachtas cross-party working group on the re-municipalisation of waste. There needs to be focus on the barriers to this. The climate committee can do a job of work on it, but the Government should grasp the opportunity and bring these services back in to public ownership.
One of the things I am most proud of was to be a councillor on Dublin City Council for six years, from 1997 to 2002.
In those years, as I remember, there were very lengthy debates about waste management, bin collection and bin services. Councillors sometimes have a hard decision because the gallery is right behind them rather than at a distance. I remember at the time taking a difficult decision in favour of the expansion of our bin service to include a brown bin and a green bin, as well as a black bin. Various parties there opposed it at every turn and various other people said that it would never work, that people would never do it and that Irish people do not like recycling and are not up to it. I have found that sometimes you can deliver things in politics. One of my proudest moments is that we actually got that through and delivered green bins and brown bins. Now, we need to go further in a variety of different ways.
A third of households do not have brown bins.
We need to do that with funding, first and foremost. If we could sit down and agree funding mechanisms for local authorities based on sustainable long-term commitments, that would make very real the people's ambitions for whatever new services we want to see local authorities delivering.
