The minutes of the meeting of 14 November have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising from them?
Business of Joint Committee.
I would like to raise two issues, one of which is the time at which our meetings are held and the place where they take place. This commencement time is the worst for Members of the Seanad because the meeting starts right before the Order of Business. Senators will have to leave the meeting during the presentations that will be made in about half an hour's time. Can meetings commence at 9.30 a.m.?
I would also like meetings to take place in Committee Room 1. The reason is that we should show proper leadership by ensuring this is a paperless committee. If we were to meet in Committee Room 1, papers could be displayed on screen. We need to make an effort in that respect.
We will deal with all kinds of issues. Next week we will face critical comments about the Chairman travelling to Bali with a group and the resulting carbon footprint, etc. We need to consider how we will deal with such comments. We should make it clear that we will not needlessly spend time travelling because we do not have time to do so and that we have reached a compromise that we will only avail of air travel when it most appropriate to do so. We should also make a decision that this will be a carbon neutral committee. That would mean probably having to buy carbon credits somewhere along the way. These are issues we need to address. We should take the approach of doing it to them before they do it to us. In the next few weeks we will read articles in the newspapers about what I have said. Someone will write about this committee having been established, etc. Let us deal with the fact that a journalist will probably write a sneering comment about me on the back page of a newspaper to the effect that a delegation from this committee has travelled to Bali, that this is the level of its carbon footprint, etc. Let us make a decision that committee members will use air travel only where it is most appropriate to do so, because it is practical, otherwise we will spend all our time travelling.
We should attempt to ensure this will be a paperless committee. On the last occasion I suggested this a number of members, including my colleague, Deputy Ferris, said that perhaps it should be a matter of choice. I can live with that. If the committee was paperless, papers for meetings would be sent electronically by the committee secretariat to members who could print them in their offices. A huge volume of paper is circulated for meetings. I will not let this issue go; I will continue to pursue it. A great deal of time is spent by the committee secretariat in copying huge volumes of paper, putting it into envelopes and sending it to members. This paper then finds its way to the bin. It is unnecessary. We should find a way through it. I am on three boards at present which do not use paper. They are composed mainly of middle aged males such as ourselves and they can handle it. The problem is always middle aged males but I can guarantee that if it were possible to send a cheque electronically, they would have no trouble finding a way to open it.
I am serious about this issue. We should make an effort to be a paperless committee. It would not be a big deal. Papers can be brought up on the screens in front of us and the secretariat can simply move them along. If people wish to print them, let them. That is not a difficulty.
I arrived half way through Senator O'Toole's comments. We should lead by example on this. All of us have computers in our offices and we are computer literate, or at least have secretaries who are. There is no reason for not sending out notices purely by e-mail. If people wish to print them, they can do so. At least we can say we are trying to change habits.
With regard to travel, the practice of buying carbon credits for flying is verging on tokenism. However, if it raises awareness of carbon emissions caused by flying, we should consider it. I am not sure taxpayers would be happy with us spending money paying for flights in the first place and then paying for the emissions of those flights. Nevertheless, I am happy to consider it in more detail and go with the Chairman's judgment on it.
I concur with the two last speakers. I understand that the Cabinet operates on a paperless basis at meetings. It is the way to go. We cannot recommend it for other committees, which I believe we should, unless we put it in place. Will Senator O'Toole define "middle aged"? Was he including all of us in that category? Second, I believe we would also make a major contribution if we cut down on the amount of hot air generated by this committee.
I apologise for being late.
We are discussing matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting. I am taking a liberal approach as to whether the matters do arise.
It is worthwhile considering these issues at the beginning of our work. It would be useful to get a report on the package of issues we can address or at least on which we can set a good example. If we do not do it, it is open to others to ask why they should be expected to do it. The concept of carbon credits is probably a second best option but there is no doubt that journeys will have to be made by members of the committee and they will have to travel by air. I support reducing its impact in some way rather than simply ignoring it. However, there might be other things we have not yet thought about that we could do. We could, in a sense, experiment and see how far we can take it.
On the issue of carbon credits, we should lead by example and use the low carbon travel option wherever possible. I travelled overland to Brussels last week for a climate change conference. Brussels is only ten hours from Dún Laoghaire by boat and train. It is not easy to take that option but I believe the committee should, where possible, opt for the low carbon option. If we must fly, we should purchase carbon credits where appropriate.
A number of issues have been raised. All members are experienced politicians; we do not go on trips for the sake of it. We go to do business, to represent our committee and to undertake its work. Hopefully we will learn from such trips. We all have plenty of opportunities to travel if we so wish, and we do not look to this committee merely to get a trip. I agree fully with the idea of the paperless exercise. We will investigate all of this, including Deputy McManus's suggestion, and will report back. We will probably have one more meeting before Christmas. The committee is young; this is only our second meeting.
I like the sound of that, a "young" committee.
As a member of this young committee, I will settle for that description as well.
We have not yet fixed a certain day and time for our meetings. I would prefer if we could stick to our first preference, which was Wednesday afternoon. Nobody has reported back to me that we cannot do so. If it must be in the morning time I will take on board those points. If members wish to leave the matter with me I will try to facilitate everybody.
We will investigate with the Department the issue of carbon credits and the purchase of such credits. We will do our best not to abuse carbon emissions. It has been suggested that Departments should be asked to switch off lights, but how many of us switch off our office lights or computers when we leave the office? As a large amount of carbon emissions is being used up by such simple things, perhaps we should start with our own offices and tell our friends to switch off the lights. One may pass by Departments at 9 p.m. and they are ablaze with lights. We could do much more in this respect.
The next item is correspondence.
Before we leave this matter, I was not present at the first meeting, but the question arose as to which parent Department we would make our recommendations. Was that clarified?
Happily, we are not in that position because our business cuts across numerous departmental remits, including energy, the environment, agriculture and transport. If this committee requires the assistance of a particular Department we can call upon it. I am pleased about that. We want to retain our independence. That is important as far as I am concerned.
As regards correspondence, members asked at the last meeting that we should get a briefing on energy security and climate change. This briefing is now listed in correspondence items 32/07 to 2520/07. It is provided by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Oireachtas Library. A further briefing by Sustainable Energy Ireland is also available to the committee. I hope these will be helpful to members of the committee. A list has been circulated to members in this regard. Do members have any comments concerning these matters?
Can we discuss the draft work programme as part of this?
That is the next item. If there are no questions on that, we will move on to the draft work programme.
The point the Chairman made about the importance of seeing this as an interdepartmental matter, is essential in the work we will do. We should invite the Ministers for Transport, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources — they are the core Ministers — to set out their stalls on how they see this issue reflecting on their Departments and what they will do to ensure the targets set out in the programme for Government are met.
It is not possible for one Department to make the changes. I have made the point that this change must be led from the top. It would be helpful for us to get an insight into how Departments are dealing with this. I recommend we invite each of the four Ministers to the committee to focus purely on the issue of climate change in terms of the work of their Departments. It is important we include that in the draft programme. We do not necessarily have to invite them one after the other but we should have these presentations early on in order to be able to scrutinise and question the approach being adopted. It is fairly early in the lifetime of the Government.
The role of this committee should be seen as non-party political and essentially to try to hold the Government to account in terms of the challenges it faces. Nobody, except people who are naive or ignorant of this issue, could suggest the challenges climate change poses for the next ten to 20 years are not enormous for Ireland as well as every other developed country. In a careful and almost scientific way, we should look at what the Government proposes to do in terms of dramatically reducing carbon emissions and dramatically increasing the proportion of energy which comes from renewable sources and at how it will impact on a range of other areas which will be controversial, including agriculture, transport, energy generation and issues around waste disposal and so on.
I agree with Deputy McManus that individual Ministers should be invited in to outline how they propose to perform and to meet certain targets. We should insist on trying to set targets. We should invite them again six or 12 months later to assess how they have performed, otherwise this committee has no real role if it only provides a running commentary on what is going on. We should try to set the agenda and targets and measure Government performance against those targets.
The four key ministries are: agriculture, fisheries and food; transport; the environment, heritage and local government; and communications, energy and natural resources. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has already asked if he can address the committee to outline what he proposes to do. We should push the others. That will involve a certain amount of controversy, particularly in the agriculture area, where one is trying to weigh up farm income concerns with responsibilities in terms of emissions. That is the way we should proceed. Meeting Sustainable Energy Ireland today to try to set the scene for what is required is a good starting point.
I agree with Deputy Coveney. The Government needs to be held to account. We should also play role in identifying the solutions and in trying, wherever possible, to get all-party consensus on those solutions. It is very easy for us all to nod sagely at the need for a 3% reduction in emissions every year. However, as Deputy Coveney pointed out, that is not easy in agriculture, transport or other areas.
As Deputy McManus suggested, we should bring in these Departments and ask what we are we doing. I would include the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as well because industry is a huge emitter. It is important for us to check that there is an awareness and understanding of the issues there as well. The hotspots or pressure points that will cause difficulty, such as agriculture as Deputy Coveney pointed out, are significant and will not be easy to deal with, but there are many other areas worth discussing. Bringing in these Ministers in succession would be worthwhile.
On looking at the breakdown I got from the EPA I was startled to discover that 28% of our emissions come from agriculture, 23% come from energy and only 2.5% come from waste. These facts must be highlighted. If we want to do something about emissions, concentrating all efforts on the 2.5% will not achieve too many targets. This is the sort of information we should disseminate to let people realise where the problem lies and what is causing it. That, in itself, would be some good done by this committee. There is much work to be done.
I completely agree with the point made by the previous speakers about the need for targets and it is well that it be broken down to departmental level. However, I want to break it down further. I want to see an annual audit of the carbon footprint of every local authority area so that we have a clear understanding of what is happening nationally and locally. Every couple of months, so that we see where we are going, we should have a breakdown of the percentage of, for example, Ireland's electricity that has been produced from renewable resources and otherwise.
I agree with the Chairman's point about knowing what is happening. The point he made about fuel is valid, but we could take that much further. A problem we in this committee will have will be in trying to keep up with and understand what is happening.
Carbon credits were mentioned. I would like a ten minute presentation to this committee to explain how carbon credits operate and how many cowboys are selling so-called "verified" units whereas they are ignoring UN certified units, and the need for proper auditing and so on, so that we understand those matters. We can certainly do that.
The questions of fuel, energy and waste may be connected in the question of waste derived fuel referred to on a number of occasions recently by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. There are people working on that at present. I would like to know how that works. However, the benchmarks seem crucial to targets.
I agree with much of what has been said. Senator O'Toole touched on the fact that there is much jargon in this area. Perhaps we should have a jargon-busting session one day so that we all could get our heads around the various buzzwords.
I agree with bringing in Ministers and Departments, but it is also important that we bring in the social partners. If there are to be changes — the Chairman and Deputy Coveney brought up the issue of agriculture — unless we have organisations such as the IFA the ICMSA involved and engaged in the process, those changes will be much more difficult to implement. The same may be said of the motor industry and all the various interests in transport, industry and so on. We need to engage with them and to put it to them that they also have a responsibility. In all of the documents, electronic and otherwise, I have not noted much coming from the farming organisations on their position on climate change. Clearly they have a role to play.
Let us not forget energy security. Already this morning we are running quickly down the climate change road. Energy security is equally as important a part of this committee's brief.
On the terms of reference of the draft work programme, section 1, it is important when we are talking about medium and long-term climate change targets, that we should implement short-term targets immediately. The Chairman touched on some of the issues in his introductory comments, particularly with regard to saving energy around the House, in offices and in our homes. We can make immediate progress in that regard.
On the point made in respect of the 2.5% relating to waste, many members of the public are not aware of the position in this regard. We must drive home the message relating to climate change. It was stated that major breaches are emanating from other areas. We must highlight this in order to facilitate an informed debate.
As Senator O'Toole stated earlier, we all have a responsibility to do our bit, regardless of whether it is in respect of paper and recycling, and there is an obligation on us, even though we might not be well versed in IT matters, etc, to make an attempt to change. We have a responsibility to lead by our actions.
I agree that the social partners are extremely important in the context of presentations made here. However, I suggest that at some point — perhaps at the midway point in our work — we should invite the Taoiseach to come before the committee to bring together the various aspects of this matter. Otherwise, there will be a danger that everything will be placed in silos.
Is there a research budget or do we rely on the library service, which is excellent? What is the position as regards research?
This is only our second meeting and this was the last committee to be established. The decent man beside me, Colm Downey, is clerk to this committee and to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and is, therefore, doubling up in his work. We may be losing his services shortly. However, we will have the services of a regular clerk.
We have research and consultancy moneys at our disposal. I put it to members that we should secure expert advice from areas of energy security and climate change. We could do so on a consultancy basis, with the contract renewable after one year, in order that someone who is technically up to speed and in a position to provide advice would be present at our meetings. I see this as the way forward. We will fight our corner to ensure we obtain the resources to which I refer. I accept that we will be obliged to put the contract out to tender. We will have an opportunity, over the Christmas recess, to organise ourselves.
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has asked to address the committee. In that context, 19 December has been chosen as a likely date.
The Minister will be taking Question Time in the Dáil on that date.
Our meeting with him will take place at 10 a.m., while he will not be taking Question Time until the afternoon.
One of the problems people encounter in the context of understanding climate change relates to the practical action required on the part of every citizen and organisation. If we are to bring on board a consultant or engage in research, we should outline the role that ordinary people can play. Everything is up in the air at present in respect of concepts, noble objectives, etc. If matters are not brought down to a level everyone can understand, we will fail.
I agree with the Deputy.
The Chairman suggested, on an informal basis prior to the meeting, that the joint committee should, perhaps, at times meet in different locations throughout the country and should facilitate the holding of information sessions in conjunction with such meetings. This committee could, therefore, meet in Galway, Waterford, Cork or Limerick as a way to make people aware of the issue of climate change. Members could also give interviews to local radio stations to get across the message. By doing this, we could take the debate outside the Oireachtas and to the public.
Younger people in schools and universities are open to accepting and supporting changes put forward by the Government in respect of this issue. It is one of the few areas in which people are ahead of politicians in seeking ambitious change in emissions and climate. We should feed into that and hold meetings in UCG or Wicklow. That would give the committee a good profile.
I am extremely anxious that we do that. The committee can advertise a meeting in Galway in advance and perhaps we can take in information and research from that area. If people in the region would like to make a submission, we could make time available to them, rather than us sitting in this room all the time, as Senator O'Toole requested.
If any member has other suggestions for the draft work programme, he or she should forward them to the clerk to the committee. When we are ready, probably at the meeting after next, we will adopt the programme, which can be amended from time to time.
I agree with much of what has been said but I am not a great believer in bringing witnesses in and quizzing them for half an hour and so on. The committee should ask Departments and the social partners to submit presentations on their goals for climate change and energy saving in advance of Ministers appearing before the committee. We would then be better equipped to interface with the people who appear before us. Later representatives of Sustainable Energy Ireland will make a presentation but I am not well briefed on what it will discuss. I will listen and learn but I will be unable to interface very much with them.
That is the purpose of the exercise. It is all about learning.
The next item is the climate change conference taking place next month. Deputy Coveney, Senator O'Malley and myself will attend on behalf of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I received an invitation from the European Parliament office in Dublin to a lunch and reception to view its recently organised all-Ireland photographic competition for secondary schools on the issue of climate change. This was done in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the environment department in Northern Ireland. The reception is in the European Parliament office at 43 Molesworth Street, Dublin, on Monday, 3 December at 12.30 p.m. when the names of the prize winning schools will be announced. The office will also launch a new website on climate change on Monday with the participation of MEPs Avril Doyle and Liam Aylward, who is vice chairman of the European Parliament's temporary committee on climate change. If members can attend, will they notify the clerk to the committee because the European Parliament office is looking for names?
I heard on the news earlier that the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will launch a national campaign on climate change later. Was there correspondence with the committee in this regard?
No, I am disappointed about that.
I am sure the Chairman has more important gigs to attend but, as a committee, we should use this opportunity to remind people that we are here and we should have been involved in that launch.
It would have been the ideal way to launch this committee. To launch such a programme through a committee of both Houses would have been a boost. I read about it in The Irish Times.
That is a very poor show. A budget of €15 million is available for this campaign and the Chairman of the committee was not invited to participate in the launch. A stiff letter needs to be sent.
The campaign should be welcomed but the Department should be reminded that the committee exists, given that it was not involved. I second the sending of a stiff letter in that regard.