Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 2024

The DRS is a national infrastructure project which operates primarily on a return-to-retail model. Under the DRS regulations, retailers are required to charge customers a deposit for each bottle sold, to take back empty containers, unless exempt, and to refund the deposit to customers. Retailers are also required to ensure that the take-back facility they provide on their premises is accessible for anyone wishing to return empty containers.

Inclusivity for all consumers is essential for a successful scheme. Individuals who have difficulties in returning bottles and cans to their local retailers should contact Re-Turn, the DRS operator, directly and it will work with the local retail community to find a solution that works for all involved. Re-Turn is committed to ensuring that all locations are accessible to consumers and are working closely with retailers and with reverse vending machine, RVM, suppliers to embed best practice, ensuring that nationally, the system is optimised in terms of convenience and accessibility for all.

With the advice of the National Disability Authority, NDA, Re-Turn is embarking on an consultative process that will examine any accessibility issues in line with best practice. An advisory group has been established, to advise Re-Turn on the process, and includes representatives from a number of disability organisations. The group had its first meeting on 6 June. An independent consultant is being appointed to manage the consultation process and, once appointed, all advocacy groups will be invited to participate in the consultation process.

I find this a bit unbelievable. Planning for this scheme has taken many months, maybe even years. The scheme was launched at the beginning of the year and the first meeting to properly discuss and have consultation around accessiblity took place on 6 June. Now an advisory panel is going to be put in place. The machines are already in place. They are welcome and are working well. However, any of them I have used are at my eye level and I am not small. I do not know how a wheelchair user would use them in the first place. For anyone who is visually impaired or blind, there is no Braille on the receipt button. How are people supposed to know where they get their receipt? They might be able to find the inlet where the bottle or can goes but how can they know where to get the receipt from?

People with mobility issues and without access to transport who shop online are dependent on having their shopping delivered. There is no mechanism in place for them to return the bottles. Many of them in areas where boil water notices are in place have to buy bottled water. They are dependent on this scheme and it is costing them money not being able to return the bottles.

The scheme was in planning for a number of years. In 2020 and 2021, there were public consultation processes which were open to everybody to offer their advice or suggestions on how the scheme should operate. When I drew up the regulations, I made it a legal requirement that the machines should be accessible to all. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications has a waste advisory group on which the NDA is represented. There were discussions with the NDA before the scheme was implemented. We followed what is best practice in other countries. These machines have been operating for 40 years in other countries across western and northern Europe. We had the experience of what happens for disability groups from visiting those countries.

As a result of that, there were certain standards implemented, such as, for example: that the slot for inserting bottles is 1.2 m off the ground in order that it is accessible to wheelchair users; that the machines can be used by people who are blind such that they are not required to push buttons on a screen; that the machines issue receipts automatically; and that people can feel whether a bottle is being accepted or rejected. Even in light of all that, when a scheme is launched, one needs to see afterwards whether it is working for the different groups. That is the purpose of setting up the advisory group. It is also the purpose of inviting every disability group to take part and tell us directly how they would like the scheme changed, whether it can be improved and whether it can be made more accessible. I am sure it can be, and I am certainly open to hearing any suggestions.

It is all right to talk about public consultation processes but if those processes are not accessible to everybody then they are not much use. We have to ensure that everybody is included, that they are easy to read and that there are accessible forms of consultation to ensure that everyone’s voices are heard.

The scheme in Demark, for example, has been operating for 20 years. It is very successful. It has some sort of mechanism for people who have their shopping delivered to return their receipts via Denmark's revenue commissioners or in some other way. Something like that could be worked out here. I am more concerned about the machines. They are expensive machines that are already in place. You do have to press a button to get it because you have to indicate that you are finished inserting your bottles and cans. I do it all the time. The fact is that the machines are inaccessible. I do not know how this can be addressed or how it can be ensured that all the machines are made accessible. At present, they are not accessible.

In the case of those who cannot leave their homes and have food delivered, I understand Re-Turn is working with meals on wheels to see if it can come up with a solution. It is also working with community groups, GAA clubs and so on to see whether it can be addressed that way. Re-Turn has dealt with people who have contacted it and has found solutions for them.

On the machines requiring users to push a button, all the different machine types I have tried will give a receipt if a person waits long enough. If one waits a few seconds, the receipt will emerge. There is no requirement to navigate an on-screen interface or press particular buttons. The receipt comes out after a period. That said, the experience of using a supermarket for somebody who is blind is completely different in my experience. It can only be described by somebody who is blind. It is obviously very difficult. One cannot tell which products on the shelves are which and one cannot see the prices of products. It is difficult. Reverse vending machines are probably one of the most accessible components in supermarkets. It is difficult to use a supermarket when you have disabilities. It is difficult to reach things on the higher shelves and so on. However, the only way to understand this properly is by working with people with lived experience of disability, listening to them, taking their suggestions and changing the scheme as needed.

My question relates to the climate action plans, the preparation of which is mandatory for all the 31 local authorities. My question specifically relates to Galway city and county and, more particularly, the Minister’s Department and what progress has been made on a monitoring and reporting system because that is essential.

In March 2023, I published statutory guidelines to assist local authorities in preparing their local authority climate action plans. Those guidelines include a requirement for ongoing monitoring and progress reporting. Each local authority must provide reporting arrangements which demonstrate accountability for the delivery of actions at various levels, including: reporting within the local authority to elected members, strategic policy committees or other forums; reporting at a sectoral level to aggregate towards performance of the local government sector on climate action; and reporting at national level, as part of the delivery of the national climate objective, to existing reporting structures for the national climate action plan, and additional reporting on progress of the local authority climate action plans.

My Department introduced action LG/24/3 to the 2024 climate action plan to develop a monitoring and reporting system for the local authority climate action plans in order to fulfil our national reporting obligations. This national monitoring and reporting system is currently being developed by my Department. My Department has developed a proposal on local authority climate key performance indicators, KPIs, to support the local authority climate action plans. We shared this in mid-May with the County and City Management Association, CCMA, climate action KPI working group. It will engage further with the CCMA on this to develop an agreed approach.

Further to my response to Parliamentary Question No. 75 of 14 May 2024, I understand that my Department has not had any engagement with Galway City or Galway County Council in relation to their local authority climate action plans to date. However, on several occasions, including in recent months, as Minister, I have met the county manager and the council’s director of services and shared informally an assessment of its plan and where we go next.

I welcome the Minister’s reply and what he set out, but I think he will agree that a monitoring and reporting system is absolutely essential. Galway City Council is in trouble when it comes to housing. It has many priorities on its hands, including traffic congestion. It seems that climate action is not getting the attention it deserves. I can understand that to a certain extent. However, we declared a climate emergency in 2019, which the Minister knows better than me. In 2021, he sought applications for a decarbonising zone. The city council did its job there and it sent that in but here we are three years later and nothing has happened. I know the decarbonising zone will be part of the climate action plan, but the Minister can imagine my frustration, and I am sure he shares it, at how long it is taking after we declared a climate emergency. We need transformative change. That will not happen with management under pressure on so many other issues. It needs to be led by the Department and the most essential part of that is a monitoring and reporting system.

I was very pleased that every one of the 31 local authorities and their councillors approved their local climate action plans in the timeframe we requested, namely by March. We have to be up front and honest that the level of engagement varies between counties but there was a very real effort to make sure that happened.

I agree with the Deputy. We need to go forward and really focus on the implementation phase in the decarbonising zones but also in monitoring and measuring. We will make sure that we do deliver those monitoring and reporting standards so that local authorities can be measured and tested on performance and delivery.

We must be careful, however. It cannot all be top down from the centre. It also has be bottom up and owned at local level. I had a series of meetings in Galway, both city and county. Another element in the mix is other actors. I had a very good meeting with Galway Chamber of Commerce which was absolutely sincere and committed about the business sector playing its part. That is not only the local authorities but also, returning to what we were saying earlier, our sustainable energy groups and so on. Yesterday, I met groups around the country which are involved with the sustainable development goals. It has to be broad. It cannot just be the local authority or business. It must be a variety of organisations, such as tidy towns organisations, local Macra and so on, which also have a role. Encouraging and facilitating them within the climate plans will be key.

Galway is a particularly good example of a bottom-up approach. I was there back during the period 2000 to 2003 when there was a bottom-up campaign against incineration - it was not in a NIMBY fashion but one of zero waste – and we were laughed at. We developed a plan for the county and what happened? The Government removed the power to make plans. The Minister is aware of all that. We collected 24,000 signatures for a feasibility study in respect of light rail. That still has not happened. The people are way ahead of us on sustainability and climate action and yet we still have foolish voices calling for an outer bypass that is going nowhere. It is going into a cul-de-sac, and in the meantime nothing is happening. Let us get back here. We need leadership from a Department for a city that is going under with a housing crisis and traffic congestion. We need leadership. The basic thing to monitor and report is missing and that delay is on the Minister’s side. Some 17 of the 20 warmest years in Ireland’s history have occurred since 1990. Ireland’s first climate change report stated that the country is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. There is insufficient action. I am over my time so I will stop, much as I would like to go on.

It needs both. We in central government must be centrally involved. But I might give a couple of examples where it also requires local authority leadership. Take the whole transport area, to return to a question from Deputy Gannon. I was making the case that to meet our climate targets we will have to reduce the volume of traffic and that requires demand-management measures which can only be taken at a local level.

We have the Department of Transport, an arm of central government, saying that it will close one road and open another. It needs local leadership. A second example of where we have a real issue is that a number of county councils in response to public concerns have basically frozen out the potential development of renewable power in their various development plans. Our ability to meet our renewables targets, which will cover half of the emissions reductions we have to see this decade, has been stymied in many instances by the development plans which basically stop it. Again, we are probably going to have to work through the national planning framework towards a more regional approach. It is fairer that it is not just some counties doing the heavy lifting and others not and also counties not benefiting from it. A third example - and the Deputy's case is a good one - is in the waste area. I agree with the Deputy. We have taken too much power from the local authorities. We need to restore action and decision-making at local level and create this new circular economy opportunity. However, that too can only come from a bottom-up approach. We will provide the legislative and other structures and funding and financing from central government but it requires leadership at a local level as well.

I thank Deputy Stanton. An Post is a commercial State body with a mandate to act commercially. It has statutory responsibility for the State's postal service and the post office network. The Government is committed to a sustainable An Post and post office network, as a key component of the economic and social infrastructure throughout Ireland. In line with this commitment, my Department is providing €10 million funding per annum over a three-year fixed term from 2023 to 2025 to An Post. This funding is being disbursed across the post office network, with An Post being responsible for operational detail.

The network of almost 900 post offices comprises company offices and contractor post offices. All contractor post offices are benefiting from the funding, with the objective of securing the stability of the network during the three-year funding period. There has been over €13.8 million claimed by An Post for the period 2023 to the end of May this year for that network. The provision of funding to postmasters contributes towards ensuring both that the public have access to important socially valuable services across the post office network, and that the network is of sufficient scale right across the country. The funding provides time and space for An Post to accelerate the transformation and commercialisation of the network to ensure a relevant, commercially viable network delivering more services to citizens and small businesses. Decisions relating to the network, including actively seeking new business and exploring opportunities to develop new or enhanced product lines, are a matter for An Post directly.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will agree with me that An Post is a very important institution or organisation in the State. It does great work, especially what it did over Covid. The work the postmen and postwomen who went out and linked with people who were isolated at that time did was hugely important. I draw the Minister's attention to the publicity post An Post operates. The Minister mentioned small business in his reply. Publicity post zones have not been changed for quite a while. Many of them are very arbitrary. They are very awkward to work on for businesses in that they cross county boundaries and so on. Has the need for these zones to be looked at and amended been brought to the Minister's attention? As a member of the relevant committee, I have been in contact with An Post on a few occasions asking it to consider this. It has agreed there is a need for it but nothing has happened in the last number of years. Will the Minister comment on that please?

Coincidentally, I was only talking to one of my team earlier and we were raising a similar issue. My understanding is that the delivery of publicity post or direct mail cannot or does not operate within electoral boundaries in many instances. We were asking ourselves the question as to why that is the case because when it comes to An Coimisiún Toghcháin communications, it can. I agreed earlier on this morning that I was going to write to the CEO of An Post to ask that very question. Why is it that the boundaries there seem to be so restrictive compared with others? "Yes" is the answer. I do not know if the Deputy's concerns came about as a result of representations similar to those I have been receiving. I will ask An Post to look at the matter.

Making the broader case, An Post is an extremely important and trusted organisation. Those 900 post offices are probably some of the most trusted institutions within our State for people's money, the social welfare, their savings as well as for mail, parcels and so on. An Post is in a challenging situation. Mail volumes continue to drop significantly. We all know this when we think about when the last time was we sent a letter. We have to see the expansion of other businesses, particularly the parcel business which has been successful and is being very well run by An Post. However, it is in a difficult and stressed situation. That €10 million per annum, €30 million over these three years, is an important support as the company transitions to a new commercial future. It is a commercial business and that is not without its challenges.

I thank the Minister for his response. Certainly, it did come from small businesses. I am also aware of the electoral and boundary issues to which the Minister alluded. It seems that some of these publicity post zones were designed at the time the stagecoach was in vogue. They are quite unwieldy. I am not sure if other colleagues in the House would agree with me but they do not seem to make any sense. They cross county boundaries and so on. Talking about getting business for An Post, would the Minister agree with me that if these publicity post zones were changed, made smaller, more localised and more workable for everybody - including politicians by the way - that An Post might actually garner more business through publicity post and this method of doing it?

Will the Minister comment on whether any of the funding is earmarked for the sustainable post vehicles that are increasingly used across the country? Is that campaign succeeding? We have heard of issues with charging, range anxiety and so on. An Post is doing a good deal of work in that space.

There is one comment I want to make about An Post in the context of its parcel service. The Minister mentioned it as well. Every road in the country we go down, we see nothing but couriers delivering all kinds of stuff. They are all private businesses and they are all obviously able to compete and make money. It seems very strange to me that An Post cannot be in that field and cannot be doing an awful lot more of that work. An Post is a State company that has had years of experience and that has a depot in practically every second parish in the country from the point of view of its post offices. However, we see that the vast majority of all of this work is being done by private companies. That just does not make sense. I know perhaps some of the working conditions of the people who are delivering for some of these private companies may be well below the standards we would expect to see the An Post drivers working to, and certainly would be lower, but it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Any assistance we can give to An Post to allow it to compete better in that market should be offered. It is clear that there is a huge opportunity in this regard. There will be further opportunities as we move forward. More people, unfortunately, are buying online and half the stuff they buy they send back. All of this needs to be addressed, but An Post is in a central position to do more of that work.

First, direct mail is a very good, profitable and important business for An Post and a very good marketing mechanism. Therefore, I agree with the Deputy. That should be an area in which we hopefully will see further expansion. Regarding the route networks, I do not think they go back to the stagecoach but I remember when we were establishing the Eircode system that this network is based around the postal delivery going back to where the local post person is working. That is a core part of An Post's business. How it uses it is something I hope it can amend or I hope it can further develop the resource it has.

Second, regarding electric vehicles, An Post deserves huge credit in this regard. I remember up to five years ago, someone came to the chief executive of An Post at the time with a proposal for two or three electric vehicles. Instead, the ambition was that it would change the entire fleet and really think big. That has been very successful. It is a real example of a State company showing real enterprise and real capability that benefits the company and the community with cleaner, quieter vehicles with lower emissions. An Post has done very well in that. It is a real model of how businesses can be changed quite dramatically.

In answer to Deputy Kenny-----

-----An Post's parcel business is very successful. It is very active, very competitive and one of the largest, if not the largest, players in that market.

The company is expanding that business quite successfully and quite rapidly. The challenge for the company is how it can manage that at scale as well as other diverse income streams to cope with the natural decline in its former core business, as is happening right across Europe. An Post is now a very serious large player in the parcel delivery business and I am very glad it is.

The EU Just Transition Fund is a new fund created under the 2021-27 EU budget period, operating within the framework of the EU cohesion policy. The fund’s single specific objective is to support the regions in the European Union that are most negatively affected by the transition to climate neutrality. In essence, the fund aims to address employment, economic, social and environmental impacts that come with the shift away from carbon-intense activities and to prioritise this support to the most affected regions of the EU.

Ireland's EU Just Transition Fund programme, formally launched in April 2023, will provide €169 million, including €84.5 million of EU funding, until 2027 to support the economic transition of the midlands region. The designated territory for Ireland’s programme was approved by the Government and by the European Commission and is aligned with the historical dependence of the region on commercial peat extraction for power generation as described in the territorial just transition plan which underpins the programme.

To date, €137 million of this funding has been allocated or is in the process of being allocated to projects through open calls in a variety of areas such as tourism infrastructure, including trails and supports for business in the tourism sector to grow the visitor economy in the midlands region; the bioeconomy demonstration initiative, which is designed to fund, pilot and demonstrate bioeconomy innovation in action within the midlands territory; supports for the implementation of the local economic and community plans and of the relevant regional enterprise plans within the territory; and electric vehicle destination charging infrastructure.

Most recently, I was pleased to note the announcement on 19 June by Fáilte Ireland of the award of over €32 million in investment grants for regenerative tourism projects as part of Ireland's programme. The regenerative tourism and placemaking scheme seeks to create transformative and unique experiences that benefit visitors, local communities and nature. I look forward to the delivery of these projects and to their positive impact on the economic and employment opportunities in the midlands region. Additional further announcements are expected in the coming months on the selection of projects under other schemes within the EU Just Transition Fund programme, including schemes relating to investment grants to tourism SMEs, peatland restoration, the bioeconomy and public transport electrification.

As the Minister has outlined, I understand that significant funding is being made available for Ireland to assist the regions and communities that are most negatively impacted by the transition to climate neutrality and to promote socioeconomic transition. Ireland is assessed to receive €84.5 million up to 2027 and the Government plans to match this funding with Exchequer resources. As the Minister has already alluded to, so far Fáilte Ireland has approved €32 million in grants under this scheme. However, why is this funding being solely concentrated on the midlands? Why are counties, like my county of Clare, not being included considering, as I have mentioned, we are losing our fossil fuel power station in its historical format? Moneypoint has seen significant changes in recent years, especially in respect of its workforce, which has had an impact on employment opportunities in west Clare in general and Kilrush specifically.

The Deputy is right in saying that County Clare is not included. In conjunction with European Commission, it was decided that it would involve counties Offaly, Laois, Longford, Westmeath and Roscommon as well as five additional municipal districts: Ballinasloe in County Galway; Athy and Clane-Maynooth in County Kildare; and Carrick-on-Suir and Thurles in County Tipperary. That is because our application and our approach very much targeted the switch away from extracting peat. Moneypoint is changing and will switch off coal-powered generation next year. However, it will continue to be a significant piece of energy infrastructure, initially in a transition phase using oil, but more significantly in the longer term as we develop offshore facilities, Moneypoint is very well placed. Given its location on the grid and ESB's capability, Moneypoint will have a very important future role in the energy system of this country. That is the reason County Clare is not included. It was about the counties that had previous peat-fired power generation and extraction. Managing a just transition for that particular sector was what we targeted.

I appreciate that the midlands needs that extra assistance and I appreciate what the Minister said in respect of Moneypoint, but I have outlined the employment opportunities for the community. Responses to parliamentary questions have shown that when it comes to the construction of the offshore wind farms at Moneypoint, there may be employment of up to 600 positions but outside that, employment opportunities available for the community are very unsure.

The most recent Pobal report showed that urban Kilrush is the most severely deprived settlement in County Clare. Urban Kilrush was the only area to be classed as extremely disadvantaged. Of a population of 306, only 6% are attending third level education, one in three are unemployed while 47% of households are recorded as lone parent families. I think there is a case for Clare to be included for funding to ensure a just transition for that community. I would also like to add that it is very far back west.

I take the Deputy's point about Kilrush. There are other towns across the country where we have particular difficulties. I believe this green energy revolution will benefit such towns. It will not always be the big projects. The Moneypoint development for offshore wind is a really large-scale project and it will take some time. However, there are immediate opportunities. Earlier in discussion with Deputy Gannon, I mentioned that we now have programme projects developing anaerobic digestion. The area around Loop Head, Kilrush and Kilkee might be the sort of location where that might fit in within the agricultural economy in that part of west Clare.

This is controversial and there are different views. In County Clare there has been a lot of controversy about the development of wind farms but that has the potential to bring benefits to the local community. While job numbers are not that large, increasingly employers and investors will be looking for access to clean power. County Clare is very well situated on the west coast to have that renewable power. It is not just the offshore energy generation; we need to look for other onshore opportunities and every county has that opportunity.

It is well known that sectors such as food, construction and transport can greatly reduce their negative impact on the environment - not just emissions but biodiversity-impacting pollution waste. I know that the Minister has ambitions to do this. Have we already started getting the sectors together to make the changes that are needed?

Ireland’s strategic approach to the circular economy is set out in the whole-of-government Circular Economy Strategy 2022-2023. The Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 provides a statutory basis for future iterations of the strategy and requires that such iterations include sectoral targets aimed at promoting circularity across the range of resource-intensive economic sectors specified in the Act. I believe Deputy Bruton asked for those sectoral targets to be included and I thank him for that amendment.

My Department is currently preparing the second iteration of the strategy. A circularity gap report has been commissioned as part of this work. This report will provide the required evidence base and technical analysis for the new strategy.

My Department is committed to conducting a comprehensive public and stakeholder consultation as part of the preparation of the strategy.

Two coalition roundtables were held in May and June with key stakeholders to assist in contributing to the emerging findings in the circularity gap report and help to shape the outcomes of the report by identifying barriers and enablers in sectors such as agriculture, bioeconomy, built environment and consumables to improve circularity. In 2023, despite significant climate action achievements in Ireland, particularly in renewable energy, active travel and funding delivery rates of committed actions for the year were not equal to the actions set out in the Climate Action Plan. This creates challenges for legally binding EU and national emissions reduction targets. The Climate Action Plan 2024 is focused on high-impact actions that will accelerate the action required to respond to the climate crisis, putting climate solutions at the centre of Ireland’s social and economic development.

I appreciate what is happening, but when we passed that circular economy Act it was enshrined that we would have the second circular economy strategy within six months. The Government has not activated that section, so as a result the six months did not start. That is a sleight of hand. In countries that have been successful in this field, they had voluntary compacts developed before the statutory obligations came in, particularly in the Netherlands where sectors came together. I put it to the Minister of State that today we hear about transport and how we are deviating, but if we looked at material use, reuse, repair, waste recovery and optimum market design in the transport sector - and had all the interests in the room - we would be in a different place. There would be more sharing, and we would push through some of the things holding us back. I urge the Minister of State, instead of a consultation, to get people doing things collectively and then bring in the obligations as quickly as they can be developed.

As the Deputy has said, we are within the law. The six months starts from the time that section is commenced. I understand the Deputy's frustration. It is taking longer than expected. The problem is more complex than we thought. It will be delivered by the end of this year. Part of what we needed to do was commission a national circularity assessment and material flow analysis to understand the sectoral priorities and to understand how circular the Irish economy is or is not. What are the different bits that need to be improved? When you set targets, you have to make sure they are achievable, realistic and ambitious. To do that you need to sit down with the different sectors. In May, 100 stakeholders participated in the first round and then another 100 took part in June. The different sectors we are looking at are construction, agriculture, retail, packaging, textiles and electronic equipment. The Deputy makes the case that in order for this to work we need to have a sectoral compact and make sure we are not imposing targets and rules on different sectors. He says we should sit down with them and say let us all fix this problem together. The Deputy is pointing at the Dutch as an example of working sectoral compacts. I met with the Dutch embassy and have spoken with the Dutch. We are following that model, partly because it was proposed by Deputy Bruton during the drafting of the legislation. We are working on it and will get there this year. We will have sectoral compacts. The extent of producer responsibility in packaging for the deposit return scheme is an example of how the industry can sit down to make something work in practice.

There were loads of things that could be done. Some 60% of what we discard goes into the wrong place where it cannot be recovered. There is no question of recovery, recycling or reuse. That was an early win. We do not have to wait for statutory obligations to come in to get the sectors around the table eliminating things like that. That is where my frustration comes from. It is a lot of the stuff before you get to the point of obligations, regulatory impact assessment and all of that heavy artillery. You could be getting a lot of momentum built in these sectors.

It is important to remember that we need progress in this area. We also need co-ordinated progress. We need to have regard to the extent to which we address the issues in a meaningful way without impacting negatively on another community. The danger is having a Dublin solution to a nationwide problem. It does not work that way. It has to be a case of bringing all the people of the country together. There are now people who are worried about having to pay the largest price, which will ultimately affect their livelihoods and perhaps the country's economic prospects. This needs to be borne in mind to a greater extent than heretofore.

It is not the case that I am waiting for these reports before I can do anything in the sectors. We are really trying to make progress already. I have, for example, proposed mandatory segregation of waste on commercial operators, which was never there. People in their homes have to segregate their waste but there was no obligation for businesses to do that. I am also changing the rules on construction and demolition waste, because that is the largest sector and opportunity for improvement. As a result of new national determinations on end of waste that have come from the EPA, we will save roughly half of our soil and clay construction waste, which will be recycled. That is roughly 5 million tonnes this year. I am looking to change the exemptions on land filling, which should also help. We are making progress in all of those areas.

I turn to Deputy Durkan's question about being Dublin focused and making sure things work outside Dublin. This is always a risk with all Government policy. The Constitution states that the Dáil sits in Dublin. However, I guarantee that the 200 stakeholders we have consulted in the past two months have been outside of Dublin.

I am sure the Minister has seen the comments by the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising. He correctly calls the fossil fuel companies the godfathers of climate chaos, who rake in record profits while the most vulnerable are left stranded. I asked the Taoiseach about this a couple of weeks ago and he said he would speak to the Minister, Deputy Ryan, to ask him to share his view on the comments of the UN Secretary General. Has he done so, and what view did the Minister share?

I have not yet been consulted by the Taoiseach with regard to fossil fuel advertising. While I would, in principle, support such a ban, advertising standards do not fall within the remit of my Department. However, much has been done to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which I believe answers the call of Secretary General Guterres. Our Department no longer accepts new applications for exploration licences for natural gas or oil, nor will there be any future licensing rounds. A policy statement on petroleum exploration and production in Ireland was published in August 2022 reflecting the current policy and legislative position of the Government on petroleum exploration and production. Recent legislative amendments made to the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960 through the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 have placed this commitment on a statutory basis. Work is ongoing, furthermore, to end the issuing of prospecting licences, mining licences or leases for coal, lignite and oil shale through the provisions of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 to be commenced soon. More generally, work is continuing to end our reliance on fossil fuels through the development of renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Our membership of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance and our international leadership by not exploring for fossil fuels, not investing State funds in fossil fuel companies, the measures I mentioned and the end of fracking in Ireland give us a response to Secretary General Guterres that is different from that of most other countries. How we would go further in advertising is something that our Department does not have responsibility for. In principle, I can see the merit of what the Secretary General is saying, but how exactly it would be applied is something that needs to be considered. No work has been done to date in my Department, or any other I am aware of, to turn that into a reality.

It is interesting that the Minister states his Department is not responsible. I got a letter from the Ceann Comhairle disallowing one of the questions I put asking if the Minister would support such a ban. It was disallowed on the basis that the Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann and that the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland is a self-regulatory organisation. Does the Minister know if his Department had any hand in encouraging the Ceann Comhairle to disallow that question? It seems strange to say that neither the Minister's Department nor it seems any other would answer a question about this because it is a question for advertising standards. This is clearly a political measure. As far as I remember, it was the Department of Health that introduced the Bill to ban tobacco advertising. This is a measure that should be taken in the interests of public health and of climate action, which clearly is the Minister's Department. We know that the fossil fuel companies have known since 1957 that burning fossil fuels causes increased CO2 levels.

We know they have engaged in massive, expensive campaigns of disinformation, just like the tobacco companies, to prevent that evidence from coming out. We need to treat the fossil fuel industry like the tobacco industry, banning the advertising of its products and their promotion through sponsorships.

I did not have any discussions with the Ceann Comhairle and I would never do so, given he is an independent constitutional officeholder and he decides. He was probably making a correct call in that our Department does not have specific authority for advertising standards. The Deputy makes the case that in previous instances, the Department of Health may have been involved in amending the regulations for tobacco advertising, and I will look at whether a line Department can introduce standards in advertising. I would have thought that would also have to go through the culture and media Minister, my colleague Deputy Catherine Martin, in the context of the application of it.

I do not believe we should just hand over responsibility for an industry-led advertising standards body. It does good work but in terms of public policy measures, the State still has a role. The exact mechanism in this case is slightly different from the tobacco advertising restriction because the definition of what we would or would not include or allow in this form of advertising is quite broad. It goes into the transport and energy sectors. We could argue, for example, that it might include fossil-based fertilisers or other products as well as, going back to what we were discussing earlier in the context of the circular economy, waste, oil-based plastics and so on. The complexity of the climate challenge we face and the addressing of it is such that fossil fuels are embedded in so many elements of our society. The very beneficial change to tobacco advertising regulations is not as easily applied here because of the variety of elements of fossil fuels in our lives.

It is at least as important, however, if not more. There is a public health element. One in ten children in this country is suffering from asthma and fossil fuel cars are a major contributor to that. Of course, there is also the biggest challenge facing humanity as a whole: climate catastrophe, for which the fossil fuel companies are the number one culprits.

The Minister has been the subject of a personalised campaign by the number one polluter from this country. These companies use their influence, public presence and money not just to try to demonise those who would be in favour of climate action but also to try to encourage the consumption of fossil fuels. Advertising works. It is why more than $1 trillion a year is spent worldwide, with hundreds of billions of euro spent on fossil fuel advertising. It shapes people's behaviour. Freeing people from adverts for fossil fuel uses such as fossil fuel cars and flights would improve people's lives. We have a Bill to do precisely that, which we have introduced on First Stage. I wonder whether the Minister will support it on Second Stage.

As I said in my initial response, in principle I agree with the Deputy. If our world is burning, as it is, and if people are profiteering from that, the issue is how we can reduce demand or the impacts of advertising from such bodies that are causing damage. I do not disagree in principle, but the exact means for application are something we would have to consider and for which we would have to work out what we will do.

It is starting to happen. For example, in the case of many cultural or other institutions, the idea they would accept sponsorship from a fossil fuel company is increasingly contested and restricted, in effect by public peer pressure and so on. Changes are happening in that regard, therefore, but as for the legislative means for implementing it, I have not seen an example of that globally. It would be good to see whether there are examples in other countries where restrictions to advertising have taken place, and on that basis we can see whether we can start applying the same here. In principle, I agree, but as for the exact mechanism, it is more complex than, for example, tobacco advertising, the issue we mentioned earlier.

Responsibility for the regulation of the electricity market is a matter for the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, an independent regulator accountable to a committee of the Oireachtas and not to me as Minister. The CRU was assigned responsibility for the regulation of the electricity sector following the enactment of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 and subsequent legislation. The CRU is responsible for, inter alia, the economic regulation of the electricity system operators: ESB Networks, for distribution; and EirGrid, for transmission. The cost of building, safely operating and maintaining the electricity system is recovered by system operators through charges on customers, all of which is overseen and agreed with the CRU. System operator spending is agreed with the CRU in five-year cycles, referred to as price reviews.

The North-South interconnector is a transmission project being undertaken by EirGrid. The Government does not have any role in the delivery of electricity infrastructure on the ground. This is consistent with the 2012 Government Policy Statement on the Strategic Importance of Transmission and Other Energy Infrastructure, which states, "The Government does not seek to direct EirGrid and ESB Networks or other energy infrastructure developers to particular sites or routes or technologies." It is for the system operators to determine the means of delivery of infrastructure, and in doing so, they seek to work in close collaboration with landowners and stakeholders.

The North-South interconnector is an essential infrastructure project that will link the electricity transmission networks of Ireland and Northern Ireland, leading to a more secure, affordable and sustainable supply of electricity throughout the island. It will facilitate the connection of 900 MW of renewable generation, enough to power 600,000 homes through green energy.

As Minister, I have operated within the regulatory and policy framework regarding the delivery of electricity infrastructure and have not had meetings with community groups about the project. However, EirGrid has engaged, and will continue to do so, with the local communities affected by the development of the North-South interconnector, as well as continuing to engage with the elected representatives of those communities.

The Minister stated this is an essential infrastructure project. I recall, when I was a member of Cavan County Council, having discussions about this project, which must have been in 2006 or 2007. We are almost 20 years on and the project has not moved at all. The main reason it has not moved is that the landowners are totally opposed, from my consultation with them, to this going over their land, for a number of reasons that have not yet been addressed. Does the Minister know how many landowners have accepted that EirGrid or a company acting on its behalf can go onto their land and start the construction of this project?

I accept how important the project is for energy supply on the island, but I do not know whether the option of undergrounding has been properly explored. Has it been totally rejected as a possible route to getting this project over the line? We are told 50% of the landowners north of the Border have agreed to a compensation offer, which is from a company separate to EirGrid. Do we know what percentage of landowners on this side of the Border have agreed? If all or most of the land has to be acquired by CPO, we are on a collision course.

I do not have the exact figures but this issue has been subject to debate. I have had extensive meetings with the county councils in counties impacted but also with the North-South Ministerial Council, where the Deputy's Sinn Féin colleagues in Northern Ireland have a critical role. They agree with me that we need this project. It needs to be built and it is vital for both the Northern economy and the wider island. It will save Irish consumers about €100 million a year but will also bring significant security benefits and economic development benefits, especially to the Border counties and counties on the other side of the Border. The project crosses the Border and exists on both sides, and my understanding is that a larger percentage of landowners in the North have agreed to, or are in broad agreement with, the arrangements they may have negotiated directly. That is less so the case in the South but that is an issue for EirGrid, the CRU and ESB Networks, which is the company that will be involved in the development of the facility.

While we do not get involved in the direct negotiations or with any of the arrangements for the specific project, my political view is that we need this project to be built. As the Deputy said, it has been under consideration for 20 years. We have looked at it upside down and inside out and it now needs to be built. I will be supportive of whatever proposals are put forward by EirGrid or the CRU, as the independent regulator, for how we will do that, but it is time now to build the project and I will be supportive of whatever role the agencies have in making that happen.

I accept the importance of this project but I am concerned about how it is going to proceed if there is such opposition on the ground.

Is there a contingency plan to deal with that? Have EirGrid, the Government or the Oireachtas committee referenced by the Minister that has oversight of this issue any other plans in place to deal with this? All I can see is strong opposition on the ground and possible legal challenges which will hold up the whole project further down the line.

There is now an indication the CRU will act on section 45 of the 1999 electricity Act to move for a CPO of lands and will outline the process in that regard in the coming weeks. That is a recipe for conflict, in my opinion. If the Minister wants to see this project delivered he needs to go plan B at this stage. The project will not be delivered in the way that EirGrid or the Minister currently see it.

I do not know what the Deputy's plan B is. My understanding from discussions with Sinn Féin colleagues up North is that they, like me, want to see this project being built. There are real security and costs to the public, North and South, for us not progressing. It is a matter for the CRU, as regulator, to decide on the exact mechanisms, such as the potential use of compulsory purchase orders or any other mechanism, it will adopt and the approach we take. That is the legally correct constitutional approach but I, like the Deputy's colleagues up North, believe that we should build the North-South interconnector now. It will benefit the Irish people, North and South.