Amendments Nos. a1 and 1 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Carbon Fund Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. a1:
In page 4, line 4, after "acquiring" to insert the following:
"(up to a maximum of 3.6 million Kyoto units by 2012)".
The Bill as presented enables the Minister through the National Treasury Management Agency to buy carbon allowances, which will be known as Kyoto units in order to meet our Kyoto commitments. The Minister is proposing that he be given an open-ended mandate by the Oireachtas to buy as much carbon as he wants. On Committee Stage he seemed to indicate his intention to authorise the purchase of carbon even beyond what might be needed to meet our Kyoto commitments and to bank it against future pollution.
The Government seems to be taking a "pollute now, pay later" approach to our Kyoto commitments given that we are way over our Kyoto limit — we are now 25% or 26% above the 1990 levels and are required to be at 13%. We are approximately 15 million tonnes wide of the mark. The Minister believes that approximately 7 million tonnes or 8 million tonnes can be achieved in emissions trading. He expects he will need to purchase approximately 3.6 million tonnes. He was so confident that the carbon reduction measures he intends to embark upon — I have not seen much evidence of them to date — would reduce our carbon emissions that 3.6 million tonnes would be the upper limit of what we would need to purchase. If that is the case, it should be specified in the Bill.
The Minister wants a mandate from the House not only to purchase carbon on an open-ended basis in respect of the existing Kyoto Agreement, he also wants to be given the power to purchase carbon for any future agreements entered into. Of course we know that the European Union has already decided it will require a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Given that the Minister is presiding over a regime with a 25% or 26% increase over 1990, a 20% reduction by 2020 will be a very tall order. Even if we get as generous a deal under the burden-sharing arrangement as we got in 1997, the Minister's own estimate is that it would require us to reach the 1990 levels by 2020 which would require a reduction of 25% or 26% on our existing emissions. That is a very tall order and the Minister wants the permission of the House to buy carbon to meet that requirement.
He is really saying that the Government has no intention of reducing emissions to the levels required under the Kyoto Agreement and the commitments we have entered into through the European Union, and that we will buy our way out of it. On the other hand he is telling us that 3.6 million tonnes will be the upper limit. He cannot have it both ways. He wants the Bill to allow him to buy carbon for existing and future agreements. When he was challenged on the matter on Committee Stage he claimed that 3.6 million tonnes would be the upper limit. Let us put it to the test. The Minister is either confident that we will get the reductions he claims will be achieved in which case he will have no difficulty in agreeing to placing the 3.6 million tonne limit in the Bill, or he is tacitly admitting that the reduction measures he has advocated will not be met.
Amendment No. a1 would cap the amount of carbon that can be purchased and for which the carbon fund can be used at 3.6 million tonnes. Amendment No. 1 proposes to delete the proposition that the Bill shall also cover future agreements. By all means let it cover the existing Kyoto Agreement, but it is not appropriate to ask that it cover future agreements, the contents of which we do not yet know. We know that the European Union will attempt to achieve a 20% reduction by 2020, but we do not know how that translates into Ireland’s requirements. The Minister is asking us to sign a blank cheque. As I said on Committee Stage, I know that some members of the Government have a fondness for blank cheques. Whatever place they may have in the financing of the Minister’s party, they should not be used to run the finances of the country. I ask the Minister to accept the amendments to cap the figure at 3.6 million tonnes, which was the figure he stated would be the upper limit. If it is the upper limit then he should insert it in the Bill.
I support the amendments tabled by Deputy Gilmore on the basis of the arguments he has adequately made. I get the unmistakable feeling of this Bill being somewhere in the region of the need to comply with the requirements imposed as a result of Kyoto and subsequent agreements instigated by the European Union, while also having the elasticity to provide a fig leaf of cover as the Government disappears into the electoral long grass where it will be met and smitten by the electorate. It is preposterous to bank up carbon credits for the future in order to be able to draw on them at some later stage as if they formed some kind of inhaler. The Minister has recently been boasting of how great a job he has done on the elimination of methane gas. The agriculture sector has nearly been closed down to combat the emissions of methane gas. He can start closer to home and deal with the methane gas emanating from the sewage treatment plants throughout the country and the effluent that is escaping into our rivers and waterways. While the Minister may be reluctant to answer questions we table on the topic, it is a serious matter. I take this opportunity to mention that we will be visiting this matter again with more frequency than we have in the past. The indication of an upper level, as Deputy Gilmore said, is a serious proposal which is not specifically stated but in this amendment the Minister is being called upon to nail his colours to the mast. Let us see the colour of his eyes.
Has the Deputy read the amendment?
I have read the amendment. The Minister would be surprised at how much reading I do from time to time despite his obvious belief to the contrary. If we are serious about this whole area and the need to deal with the whole question of carbon emissions — I fully realise industry has requirements and that we cannot close down the country — we have to make a contribution by degrees. We have to combat our particular carbon footprint and we have a duty to do that. We cannot change the world but we can make our contribution to change. It is by a variety of contributions that we will make a realistic impact and illustrate to others that something of this nature can be done. Eventually I hope to see something along the lines suggested by Deputy Gilmore that every member of the public will be able to recognise the realistic contribution they can make. Incidentally, I accept scientists have proven that we have to address this issue. By the same token there is a series of other contributory factors all of which will, ultimately, have to be tackled and addressed. Now is the time to take the necessary action given that in a 100 years most of us, no disrespect to any of us, are not likely to be around. Along with being prescriptive we must be prepared to write up the prescription. I think that is what Deputy Gilmore is proposing. I support the amendments and await with interest to hear what the Minister has to say.
I have to attend another committee at the same time as this debate although I do not have the gift of bilocation. I am sure the Minister will be delighted to hear I cannot remain here beyond 9.30 p.m. but I will do my best to be as creative as possible in the meantime.
I welcome Deputy Gilmore's amendments. We need a Bill that is radically different from what the Minister is proposing which is that taxpayers foot the bill for Government ineptitude. Not only that but the taxpayers' children and their children's children will have to pick up the tab for climate change. Now is the time for action not words. As the media rightly pointed out during the past week the Minister has talked the talk for ten years on climate change. By his actions we shall know him and his Government colleagues. He has failed dramatically to tackle climate change. He is still building roads as if the oil will last forever. He is still adapting a laissez-faire approach to planning as if climate change is not happening. He is failing to tackle not only the environmental aspects of climate change but the economic aspects.
Year on year for the next five or six years he is asking taxpayers to foot the bill, €50 million or €60 million next year and every year up to 2012 and God knows what will happen thereafter. It is immoral and fiscally imprudent to proceed with such action. If it was a blip well and good. If it was a short-term strategy to get us out of a hole on our way to a low carbon future that would be justifiable but it is not a blip. The Minister's figures show €50 million to €55 million for the years 2008 to 2012, inclusive, the whopping sum of €270 million of the plain people of Ireland's money -taxpayers' money — being spun out of Ireland to pay our way out of climate change obligations. There is a better way. The Minister knows that so much of what we can do about climate change is within his remit, in transportation, building standards, planning policy and clear actions that his Department can take. His climate change strategy is four years' out of date at this stage and, no doubt, he will cobble something together for the Ard-Fheis or perhaps a week afterwards. It is too late to cobble things together. It is too late to pretend he can come back like Neville Chamberlain and produce action in our time.
The Deputy is straying from the amendment. There are only——
I feel strongly on this issue and I respect your judgment. We need to make radical changes now. That is what Sir Nicholas Stern is telling us to do and the Minister is misquoting him for his own purpose by suggesting that carbon trading is fine. Yes, it is in the short term but not in the long term. What the Minister is doing is committing the Irish taxpayer to forking out €270 million to buy our way out of our Kyoto obligations. That is not good enough and we need to put an end to it and, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, we need to have closure rather than an open cheque book or a standing order year after year for the Irish taxpayer.
Deputy Cuffe is right in one thing. This is certainly a radical proposition. I asked if the amendment had been read. The amendment proposes that we would limit the amount of carbon purchases in this country to an average of 700,000 tonnes per year. Deputy Durkan said we should have policies that would not close business. If we were to do what this amendment asks, we would put a further imposition of 15 million tonnes on Irish business. The Deputy used the word precise. The amendment provides for "up to a maximum of 3.6 million Kyoto units by 2012". That is 700,000 tonnes per year. With respect——
On a point of order. The Minister is correct. The amendment is inaccurately worded. It should read 3.6 million tonnes per annum.
We are in the House to make law.
If the Minister wants to propose that amendment on the floor I would be happy to accept it.
The Deputy is generous in accepting it. That is the reason I asked if the other Deputies had read it. Clearly they had not read it. I accept the point the Deputy has made. The general point I have made is that this is a framework Bill which allows for a process to go into operation. I made this point during the course of the discussion. The Bill provides a framework within which the National Treasury Management Agency will make purchases not just in respect of the Kyoto Protocol but also in respect of any future agreements. It is a policy matter day to day and for Government to decide which limits would be imposed.
If I were to agree to the principle set out in the amendment I would, as I said at the outset, be accepting a total of 3.6 million tonnes for the entire period. I accept there was an error in the amendment. The Government has indicated its willingness to purchase up to 3.6 million tonnes for each year between 2008 and 2012.
In regard to the rhetoric from Deputy Cuffe that this is imposing a charge on the Irish people, the reality is that whichever way we approach our response to Kyoto it imposes a burden on us all. It is not a question of looking for the easy way out——
The polluters should pay rather than the taxpayers.
The Deputy will have an opportunity again.
The polluter, if the Deputy is honest about it, and he is an honest man, I am not suggesting otherwise, is us all; it is every citizen. When we light a fire, turn on our car, switch on a light and leave it shining for an excessive period, or forget to switch the television off at night we are all polluters. One way or another, we all must meet the charge of this, which is one of the good things that has emerged from this debate. There was a very good debate tonight in the Seanad during which the Labour Party made the point that we must all bear the cost.
The Minister is not rewarding good behaviour.
There are procedures laid down for Report Stage. The Deputy will have another opportunity to speak.
I let Deputy Cuffe speak. I respect him so I ask him to let me speak. The point I was making was that we are all polluters and must pay. There is no free way out of this, no matter what way one does it. If one does it this way, there is a cost to be picked up. If we do it Deputy Cuffe's way, there is a cost to be picked up. There is no free way out of this.
If Deputy Cuffe wants to impose an additional burden on industry, he should have the honesty to say so. The reality is that——
I do.
To be fair, the Deputy has, on several occasions, suggested this.
I am suggesting that.
Remarks must be made through the Chair. Does Deputy Cuffe want me to take this as his second contribution?
We are now getting to the core. To be fair to Deputy Cuffe, he has been straightforward in this regard. He has indicated that companies like the aluminium plant operating in the west of Ireland should be forced to bear a higher burden. However, I disagree with him. I do not believe that throwing up to 1,000 people out of work in Ireland is a good response to climate change. There are different ways to deal with the issue of climate change.
Having done all the other things, such as imposing a requirement on Irish business through the trading scheme that they will have a cut, imposing certain requirements on the ESB so that it will bear a burden and imposing a requirement on the other 108 companies in the scheme that they must bear a burden, there still arises the requirement from the day-to-day business of ordinary households. Deputy Cuffe is on record as saying that he agrees with and would impose carbon taxes. I disagree with him on this because, based on our experience, the proof is that they did not and would not work.
This legislation is far from being the totality of the response to Kyoto. The emissions trading scheme, ETS, is one part of it, while a series of measures across all Departments, agencies and policies is another part of it. They will contribute 8 million tonnes in cuts in carbon. The ETS will contribute 3 million tonnes in cuts in carbon, which will deal with a portion of the balance of 3.6 million tonnes. It is not the totality of the scheme.
The general issue about purchasing credits is not only part and parcel of the entire Kyoto process. The legitimacy of purchasing credits is recognised by Sir Nicholas Stern in his report, which is a very fine document. I have had two conversations with Sir Nicholas Stern on this issue and again spoke with him about the issue in Paris recently. The purchase of carbon credits and the creation of a carbon market is one of the ingenious responses that comes out of the Kyoto Protocol because it helps to put a price on carbon. In particular, it helps business to face its responsibilities.
A particular point is lost on Deputy Cuffe. The German Institute for Economic Research recently found that Irish businesses are the most energy-efficient in Europe and are among the cleanest in Europe. The idea that one can simply impose the full burden on business is foolhardy, which is the point made by Deputy Durkan. One cannot expect business to carry the full burden because if one forces business to carry the full burden, one creates a chaotic situation. We have already had a situation in the recent past where one of the companies which is moving its production from this country to another instanced the very high cost of Irish energy. If we were to go in the direction advocated by Deputy Cuffe, we would drive more business out and drive our energy costs up. We would meet our Kyoto targets, but we would do so by simply closing enterprise down, which is not a response and is not argued for by Sir Nicholas Stern. The case he is arguing is that economic and environmental sustainability are two sides of the same coin. He is arguing that one can have economic progress without paying an excessively burdensome cost. Deputy Cuffe is suggesting that we actually pay an excessively burdensome cost.
Returning to the specifics of the amendment — I accept that there is a typing error in the amendment — I have already made the point that this is framework legislation that facilitates the NTMA to move in a certain process. It stops the nonsensical situation that applied heretofore where each and every time the NTMA wanted to purchase carbon credits we had to come into the House. For these reasons and reasons I have outlined on Committee Stage, I am not disposed to accept the amendment.
I want to clarify matters. I think the Minister agrees that I can amend the amendment by the insertion of the words "per annum" after "Kyoto units" so that it is clear that we are talking about 3.6 million Kyoto units per annum. Where did these 3.6 million units come from? They came from the Minister. We know where we are at the moment. The Minister indicated that it is his intention that approximately 8 million tonnes will be found through the ETS and approximately 4 million tonnes will be found through the carbon reduction measures he says will be implemented. A total of 0.7 million tonnes are not accounted for, but the Minister is satisfied they will be met by way of carbon reduction. He said that the requirement to purchase will be 3.6 million tonnes. Where are we going? This is not about closing anything down. This is about how we are at the moment. Is the Minister saying we will go above our existing, very high level of emissions, which is 25% or 26% above 1990 levels? I do not hear him saying that, although the import of what he is saying is that we will go above even the 25% or 26% level at which we are at the moment. If we are not to go above the 25% or 26% level, the 3.6 million tonne limit is not unreasonable and I do not see any reason he cannot agree to it.
If we are to even stay at 25% or 26% above 1990 levels, which is very high, and the Minister's carbon reduction measures work, we will remain at 3.6 million tonnes which must be bought. I will return to this, but my basic point is that the Minister can accept this amendment because it follows his own logic. This sticks exactly with the figures the Minister gave us in respect of what must be bought. I cannot understand why he cannot accept a limit he said would be the upper end of the requirement to buy.
I am unfamiliar with amendment No. a1, of which I did not receive a copy. I thought we were addressing amendment No. 1. It is rather unusual to use an amendment No. a1 in the grouping.
I will take up the principal point of contention between the Minister and me. The Minister wishes to subsidise the dinosaurs. The Green Party is suggesting that we do not subsidise dinosaurs and instead subsidise or, at least, create a level playing field for the new forms of life emerging that pose far less danger to human life than the dinosaurs. It is as simple as that.
It is patently unfair that when a new player comes into the market, such as Ecocem, which sells a low carbon cement, it pays its taxes to subsidise the dinosaurs. This is not right. After two terms in office, it seems that the Minister's party is more committed to the dinosaurs than it is to the sunrise industries. There is a huge number of new jobs that will be created in a low carbon future. At our conference a few weeks ago, a speaker from Germany spoke about 180,000 new jobs that were created in renewable energy in Germany. It is as simple as that. What the Minister is doing is stalling on the transition period. It shows up in his figures. He gave us a graph a few weeks ago showing 55 million next year and so on for the next six years. He is failing to progress the issue. That is the bone I have to pick in regard to the dinosaurs.
We need to move on from giving no carrot to the new entrants and propping up the old polluting industries. Taxpayers will benefit if we move forward and at least create a level playing field for new entrants. These new companies will benefit and those old industries will move on. New jobs will be provided in the same way as happened when Irish Steel and Irish Fertiliser Industries Limited closed. New jobs are emerging in Cork, Arklow and elsewhere. We cannot stand still and, worse still, we cannot subsidise the past. We have to embrace a low carbon future.
What we need are real and measurable targets. The amendment offers a firm direction in that regard at 3.6 million Kyoto units per annum. If we are not going to adopt real and measurable objectives and targets, what we are doing here is using emissions trading as the cornerstone of the whole Kyoto deal. That is not what the Kyoto Agreement was about. Emissions trading was intended to be one small part of a comprehensive package. This is standing the whole process on its head. There is a better way.
The Minister equated householders with dirty industries that are largely uncontrolled in terms of CO2 emissions. That is grossly unfair to householders who are becoming more conscious and aware of their own usage of energy and dealing with CO2 generally, through public debate and, I hope through a debate such as this one. However, I accept we have a considerable way to go. Householders have proven through their approach to waste management that they are prepared to recycle. We are exceeding many of the targets set by Europe. If given reasonable infrastructure and the tools of awareness and education, people will buy into the process. We should be going down that road, at least in part. No doubt, the Minister will say he is doing that but, unfortunately, there is no evidence of it.
I do not say it lightly, but we are dealing with tokenism in terms of the issues that I have just addressed. We are overly dependent on emissions trading and that is most unfortunate. Is my time up?
The Deputy should address his remarks specifically to amendments Nos. a1 and 1.
That is what I am doing.
Acting Chairman
It sounds more like a Second Stage speech.
Amendment No. a1 refers to setting specific targets of 3.6 million Kyoto units per annum. I am offering the Minister some guidance, which he clearly needs, in terms of how to achieve this target. Rather than depending entirely on emissions trading, he should be specific. The amendment refers to a specific target. I urge the Minister to take this on board.
I support the amendment. I am steadfastly opposed to the Bill in its entirety because it ignores any other options and goes straight to the soft option which is making every taxpayer in the State pay for the sins of those huge, dirty industries that, unfortunately, are continuing to get away with it.
Deputy Cuffe gave an excellent example of Ecocem, a company that can operate in the current building boom where we are still using dinosaurs when there is a better way. Instead of incentivising those who are demonstrating a better way, we are closing the door on the environmentally friendly options. That is indicative of where the Bill is coming from and how it is structured. This is most unfortunate.
It is difficult to know where to start. Both Deputies Cuffe and Morgan suggested the real culprit is industry. Let us look at the facts. A total of 16% of emissions in 2004 came from industry. It would be outrageous to impose 100% of the burden on a sector that produces 16% of emissions.
Nobody is suggesting that.
We are not suggesting that.
The Deputies should bear with me.
The Minister is not in the L&H now.
A total of 10% of emissions comes from the residential sector, 25% comes from the energy sector, 29% comes from agriculture, 18% from transport and 3% from waste. Deputy Cuffe made the point that the position supports the dinosaurs. That is colourful language. Deputy Morgan suggested the purchase of carbon credits is the totality of the response. With respect, both Deputies are wrong.
The emissions trading scheme, which is a European Union scheme, established the position and the operational situation in each member state with some precision. The scheme puts a restriction on existing companies. It does not provide them with a subsidy of any kind; it provides them with a requirement that they must cut emissions.
It gives them a carbon allowance for free.
In the Irish case, what that cut amounts to is that these 109 enterprises and bodies within the emissions trading scheme must cut their emissions by 3 million tonnes. It is not a subsidy and it is perverse to suggest it is.
In effect, 95% of their emissions are free.
I am disappointed the Minister has not accepted my amendment. That means we are either going to increase our emissions beyond the 25% or 26% above current levels or the Minister has no confidence in his own carbon reduction measures. If he had confidence in them, and we are not going to increase beyond 25% or 26%, then 3.6 million units is the limit of the amount we would be required to buy.
The amendment has succeeded in flushing out the real Government position, which is that we are going to increase our emissions. The Government will preside over continued pollution and the taxpayer will pay for it. That is the position of the Government. I am disappointed with it because, economically, it is unsound and it is environmentally irresponsible.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 1 was discussed with amendment No. a1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 4 and 5, to delete "or future".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 23, after "may" to insert "with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann".
We had a long discussion on this amendment on Committee Stage so I do not propose to repeat it. The Minister is seeking not so much a blank cheque or a standing order, as Deputy Cuffe described it, but a direct debit. Whatever our debit on carbon will be, there will be a direct debit to the taxpayer for the Government to buy credits and it will do that without the prior approval of the Dáil for the amount involved. We had a long debate on this issue, and I have no wish to rehearse it, simply asking that the amendment be put.
Once again I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment tabled on behalf of the Labour Party. It brings a measure of political accountability to the process and democratises it to some degree. It also engages public debate on the issue, since it is important that we maintain it in public view and discuss it regularly. It would be meritorious on all our parts.
As Deputy Gilmore said, we had a lengthy discussion on this. The net effect of the amendment would be that each and every time the NTMA, the body registered to buy carbon credits, wished to make a purchase, we would have to put a formal motion before the Dáil. That is wildly impractical for a variety of reasons. We have already had two debates on the purchase of €20 million of targets. If one purchased €10 million this month and another €10 million or €15 million next, one would have to have a whole series of debates. Much as I enjoy debating carbon credits, it would be impractical to condemn the House to such a fate.
The convenience or amusement of the House is only one issue, and we could certainly fill many happy hours debating this subject. Second, and more importantly, however, it could cost taxpayers serious amounts of money. Just before Christmas we received a very good offer to buy €20 million of credits in an excellent scheme operated by the World Bank. The rate was very favourable, and if one must find time for a debate on each occasion when one makes a purchase, one spancels the opportunities available to the NTMA to do so cost effectively within Government policy. That is foolhardy and a very bad way to do business.
The third point is the inflexibility that would obtain if we took that route. If one had to have a Dáil debate every time a Kyoto unit were purchased, it would nullify the Bill. The legislation will fund the purchase of Kyoto units centrally, giving the NTMA the flexibility necessary to take advantage of opportunities that appear on the market from time to time. That may not appear a positive development in the eyes of the Opposition, but from the perspective of the Government and practical people, it is a good thing. It is a positive development if there is an opportunity to gain access to a fund that is advantageous in its economic cost and beneficial in its impact. It is ludicrous to introduce inflexibility in that regard.
The mechanism balances the need to give the NTMA flexibility and the Oireachtas an opportunity to scrutinise expenditure. The money comes from the Central Fund. In determining the most efficient and effective means to fund the acquisition of Kyoto units, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has held extensive consultations with the Department of Finance, which in turn consulted the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Providing annual funding through the Department's Vote was considered, but there would then have been issues regarding capital carryover if money had not been spent, with Supplementary Estimates required if the NTMA needed additional funds in any year. If the Dáil were in recess, an opportunity to acquire Kyoto units at an advantageous price would be lost unless we reconvened the House.
Providing advance funding was also considered, but it was deemed an unattractive proposition as the funds would be tied up for several years, although they might not be required. The most flexible approach to adopt is the one in the Bill. As I have outlined, there are very relevant practical reasons concerning public accounting and finance not to take the route proposed by Deputy Gilmore. The proposition is impractical and would cost taxpayers more. It is not workable, especially if the Dáil is in recess, unless one has an emergency meeting to trigger the mechanism. It is inflexible and would ultimately nullify the Bill. I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, to delete lines 25 to 28.
There was a rather odd provision that the chief executive of the NTMA would not be permitted to express any opinion on what the Government did. In committee I drew a distinction, stating that it would be an understandable restriction to ban him or her from commenting publicly. However, it would be too restrictive to prevent the chief executive from expressing an opinion to the Government. That is taking matters too far and I asked the Minister to reconsider the section. I felt that he saw some merit in what I was attempting to achieve through my amendment. I had hoped that he might have an amendment of his own on the matter.
I support Deputy Gilmore and the Labour Party on this amendment because I wonder why the Minister might attempt to muzzle a public servant. What is the purpose of such censorship? I know a little about censorship, having powerful memories of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act 1960 and how it impinged on a significant swathe of opinion across the island. To seek to enshrine censorship in such legislation raises serious questions regarding one's motivation. What would cause the Minister to wish to do so? I look forward to hearing his rationale because to introduce censorship into legislation in this manner is bizarre in the extreme. It is certainly new to me as a legislative device and I look forward to hearing the Minister comment.
Will we get a chance to kick the tyres of the Kyoto units that we are to buy? By that, I mean to ask what discretion we will have over what we buy into. Are we simply buying into an international market with no discretion? My reading suggests that there is some involvement on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency in vetting the clean development mechanism projects in which Ireland becomes involved. However, do we have the opportunity to pick and choose? There are international standards for the Kyoto units on offer. The Worldwide Fund for Wildlife——
Acting Chairman
This amendment is geared more towards the chief executive.
It is more to do with discretion and the lack of any mechanism to pick and choose based on advice that might not be given under the proposed legislation. Where is our chance to pick and choose and does that possibility arise in the Bill?
It is not relevant to the amendment, but it is a fair question. The purchasing policy to be applied will be set out as a Government policy statement and be subject to debate in the House. This is not the appropriate occasion to deal with that.
The amendment Deputy Gilmore has moved seeks to delete lines in section 7(2). He made the salient point in committee that it was novel and that he was unable to think of another instance. I said I would examine it in some detail and did so. In fact, on Committee Stage, we all missed one point. We are talking here about the chief executive of the agency and in that context the functions performed by the agency under this Act were never required by the Committee of Public Accounts to be given in evidence. This refers to the giving of evidence before the PAC, which is important and relevant to the point under discussion. Deputy Morgan said this was new to him and he had not come across the likes of it before.
I was shocked.
Whatever. As an advocate of free speech in all matters, I take my hat off to him. However, we will leave political barbs aside. It is not a novelty, although we all thought it was on Committee Stage. I had consultations with my Department and asked where this had come from and whether it was new. I also had discussions with the Department of Finance because I felt the argument was reasoned and I wanted to see if the case for retaining the existing wording was a good one. Given that I lectured in public finance, I admit I was surprised to find that this provision is similar to those in the Comptroller and Auditor General Act 1993, which relate to Accounting Officers. That Act enshrined a generally long-accepted convention that civil servants and other public servants would not be required to comment on policy issues during presentations to the Committee of Public Accounts. When that point was made to me I could see it was factually correct. In fact, the practice goes back to the 19th century. In giving evidence before the Committee of Public Accounts, an Accounting Officer cannot be required to comment on policy issues. Members of the House who have served on the Committee of Public Accounts know this well. I think Deputy Morgan served on the committee at one stage. It is a long-standing arrangement that one cannot request a civil servant, including an Accounting Officer, appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts to venture into the area of public policy or to comment on Government policies. It has been a long-standing tradition that such officers can deal with issues arising from the accounts, their responsibilities as Accounting Officers, and issues concerning the appropriateness of expenditure to ensure it was for the purpose for which it was appropriated by the Dáil.
That tradition is also reflected in the Compellability and Privileges Act 1997, which regulated the conduct of meetings and inquiries made by Oireachtas committees under the compellability powers authorised by the Act. I should have remembered that when dealing with the matter on Committee Stage because it arose on several occasions during inquiries made by the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, a committee I once chaired. The compellability powers authorised by that Act also extend to civil servants, gardaí and members of the Defence Forces. The matter arises again in the case of the Health Service Executive and a similar provision is included in the National Pensions Reserve Act 2000.
All of these provisions arise from this long-standing tradition that one cannot require a public servant to comment on policy issues when appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts. In that regard, I could be exonerated for not knowing this. The rules and responsibilities of Accounting Officers as set out in a 2003 memorandum for the Committee of Public Accounts, have direct implications here. The PAC's terms of reference specifically state that "it shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of policy or policies of the Government or of a member of the Government, or merits of the objectives of such policies". That is provided for because those issues are tested in this Chamber by the House as a whole.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 contains a reference that in any report under that Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of policies or policy objectives". Section 19 of the same Act makes a similar provision, that the Accounting Officer "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy".
All that arises because the discussions on policy are matters for this Chamber and not for committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts. The point I am making for Deputy Gilmore is that there has been a long-standing practice and tradition in this regard, as well as much legal precedent. If we had more time we could have dealt with it more thoroughly. I said I would give it some consideration, however, and I did so. I do not have any affinity for anything that closes down freedom of speech in the general sense, but the traditions of this House, including the Committee of Public Accounts, all support the Bill's provision.
The traditions of this House certainly limit free speech.
I am happy I was able to draw something to the Minister's attention that he did not already know.
The Deputy certainly did so.
I thank him for the extensive research he has carried out and the information he has shared with the House.
It will go into my lecture notes.
I am so impressed and feel so glad that I came here to hear this information, that I will withdraw the amendment.
If we listen as well as talk, we all learn a little. I was more than impressed when the Department of Finance came back quickly with the precedents. Apparently, that Department carefully monitors and scrutinises every word I utter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 5 arises from committee proceedings and amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related, so all three may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
10.—(1) That Ireland, in co-operation with our fellow members of the European Union and the OECD, will provide a lead in reducing our own level of emissions.
(2) To this end the Government commits itself to reducing the level of recorded greenhouse gas emissions within the country by 15 to 30 per cent by 2020 in accordance with targets already agreed by the European Union heads of state in spring 2005.
(3) The Government commits itself to reducing the level of recorded greenhouse gas emissions within the country by 2050 to a level which is between 60 and 80 per cent lower than the corresponding level of emissions recorded in 1990.
(4) Such a target is accepted as being consistent with what will be required internationally for the average increase in global temperatures to be maintained at less than two degrees.
These three amendments attempt to alter the course of the ship of State, as contained in the Bill. We should look at the bigger picture because this is not just about buying carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. It must be about reducing our emissions. Sadly, whenever the Green Party has tried to raise this matter in the House we have been thwarted by the Government which has voted down our proposals to limit such emissions and introduce an annual reporting mechanism. It is interesting to examine the end game in all of this. It is not so much a question of where we are this year or where we will be in 2008 or 2009, but where we want to end up. We must look at the long-term position. Most commentators, from Sir Nicholas Stern to President Bush, agree we need to begin reducing emissions.
The European Council of Ministers has stated strongly that we must consider reductions in the order of 20% or 30% by 2020, and higher reductions thereafter. There is a moral obligation on Ireland to take the lead in this matter. We are now a wealthy country and have had phenomenal economic success over the last 15 years. While I applaud that success, we must move towards the next phase of our economic development, which involves engagement with the most pressing environmental and political issue of the day, namely, the future of our planet. I am not suggesting that we can turn the ship of State today or tomorrow, but we need to make significant reductions of the order of 3% per year. The urgency of the problem dictates that we should run an annual check-list on our emissions and make changes where necessary.
At a fundamental level it would have been prudent to implement, for instance, the European building performance directive now, rather than put it on the long finger. It would also be prudent to make a massive investment in public transport now, rather than later. We need to make radical changes in capital spending and check annually on whether we are meeting the targets we set for ourselves.
The first part of amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure we provide the lead. Ireland has provided the lead before now, at the United Nations in the 1950s and early 1960s. We had a good reputation internationally as a voice of diplomacy, separate from the power blocs of Soviet Europe and the Americas. We led the way, showed that we could provide leadership as a neutral country and did so through the United Nations. This pressing environmental issue creates a need for us to do this again.
We must consider a firm target for 2020. We can haggle over whether it should be 15%, 20% or 30% but we must unilaterally set a band width here and now for Ireland, not for Europe. We must also examine where the country will be on this issue in 40 years time and to do this it is necessary to set targets for emissions reduction.
If our forefathers in the early 1920s had seen where Ireland could be in the 1960s they might have set their sights higher. Rather than engage in a cold war through economic and social insularity they could have embraced the bigger picture and achieved huge changes early on in the formation of this State. Leadership can now be provided at an early stage on this issue by looking ahead to 2050 and examining how reductions can be made. I do not know how we will do this but I know the issue must be tackled in every Government Department, in the office of the Taoiseach and in the office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We must reduce emissions.
We must take the advice of scientists who say we must limit the growth in the warming of the planet to two degrees. We should start with the science and work back from that point because the important thing is that science is telling us what we must do. This means significant changes in Government policy are needed, not in five or ten years but now. We need leadership from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in this regard and that is the thrust of amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 6 suggests that each year the Minister should address this House and the Seanad to explain where we are going on this issue, where we have done well, where we have done badly and how changes will be made. I ask the Minister to explain to us how reductions will be tackled. How can he look the people of Ireland in the eye and say a 7% increase in transport emissions is sustainable? The Minister knows this is not the case, as do I, and he must make changes in his capital spend to address the issue. If he does not, we will. The Irish people want change and are mad as hell about this; they do not want to have to fork out their money to comply with protocols, they want policy changes sooner, rather than later. This is why we want the Minister to report to this House every year on whether we are achieving targets.
There is uncertainty about where we will be on this issue in 15 and 40 years time but we must examine where we will be in five years. I was horrified when I saw a graph in one of the Minister's press releases in recent weeks which projected the ongoing purchase of carbon credits until 2012 with no end game in sight. This is deeply worrying and it is not about the €270 million to be spent between now and then — that figure could rise to €1 billion. The Irish people do not want to continue paying these bills in five, ten and 20 years time; they want to see policy changes now and that is why I am tabling these amendments to the Bill before us today.
I support the amendment but think Deputy Cuffe has exaggerated slightly in equating the performance of this Government with a ship of State. There is something majestic about a ship of State and this Government reminds me more of a battered, old, leaking, polluting tanker flying a flag of convenience and crewed by Ministers incapable of communicating with each other and understanding safety instructions. The tanker is skippered by a weary old sea dog who has abandoned the helm and wanders around the deck winking at the few passengers on board and waving out over the railings at every ship that passes in the night. He hopes that the old tub will find its own way to a safe harbour and that he might get a fresh ticket for a renewed voyage. It needs to be turned around all right, but with a fresh skipper and a new crew.
In this area of policy the biggest turnaround needed relates to the Government's reliance on the purchase of carbon credits. There should be an emphasis on carbon reduction and I think that is the essence of Deputy Cuffe's amendment, which the Labour Party supports. We all understand that the arrangement on the Kyoto Protocol entails a mix of emissions trading, reduction and purchase but, unfortunately, the Government has the emphasis wrong. It has adopted the attitude that we can carry on as we were with no need to reduce carbon emissions and that we will pay the bill at the end of the day.
The Government's handling of this legislation makes it clear that it intends to buy up carbon while it is cheap and bank it. The Government's approach is to buy our way out of our commitments and I think that is fundamentally flawed, irresponsible and will undermine our country's position internationally as we will have no moral authority on the issue. This is the wrong approach and for this reason I support Deputy Cuffe's amendment.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy's experience in the erstwhile Department of the Marine has led to great eloquence.
I will not attempt to follow Deputy Gilmore's contribution and bow to his seafaring experience.
Deputy Morgan might think of a better metaphor.
Deputy Morgan's party has no naval wing.
We did actually, but the Deputy is stretching things a bit.
Yes they did but it was a rowing boat that ran into difficulties in Lough Swilly.
My apologies to the Deputy's colleague.
I will not wander into that territory or we will be here until the morning, although the guillotine may see to that.
The last person the Deputy should have said that to is the admiral.
Any person would be a better admiral than the one we are enjoying, or should I say enduring, at the moment because this Bill betrays a lack of vision, accountability and commitment. It represents a surrender to a single element by putting a financial burden around the necks of taxpayers. I commend Deputy Cuffe and the Green Party on these three amendments that could bring a level of accountability and public discussion to the issue. The Minister and the Government have been avoiding such discussions at all levels. We were discussing censorship and muzzling a moment ago and I have never seen any institution that manages to function as restrictively as this.
The Deputy is about to run to the Ardchomhairle.
We should have our heads examined for seeking re-election to this House when one's speaking time is guillotined every time one stands to speak and when legislation is not properly discussed and not understood by the public. I will not go on in this way or I will lose my seat in County Louth and I am under enough pressure.
The Deputy will be censored again.
If this terrible Bill is the answer to the problem then it must be some problem. I commend Deputy Cuffe's amendments to the House.
We have been long on metaphor tonight. Deputies have lost sight of the fact that up to 80% of our commitments are geared towards making specific measures. It is not true that purchasing credits is the only aspect of Government policy in this regard.
Purchasing credits accounts for three quarters of policy.
It is three quarters by measures with the other quarter permitted under the proposals. Ireland is not alone in this regard and our approach is consistent with that being adopted by the majority of the EU 15 member states for which programmes are in place. Ten of these countries have committed themselves to purchase a combined amount of 550 million carbon units and have allocated budgetary commitments of €2.8 billion to do so. The House has lost sight of the fact that in its response to the second national allocations programme, one of the negative comments made by the European Commission was that Ireland had not placed carbon fund legislation on the Statute Book.
Of all the people I expected Deputy Cuffe to quote as an authority in this matter, George Bush was not one of them. It is almost the equivalent of somebody from that side of the House last week promoting the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Howard. Neither gentleman is an exemplar of how one should respond under the Kyoto Protocol.
Deputies will be aware that the recent spring Council set very ambitious targets for Europe which lead the world and Ireland is involved in that process.
Is the Minister leading or following?
He is sleep-walking.
The EU Heads of Government set a mandatory, self-imposed target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and adopted a negotiating position to require developed states to establish a 30% reduction target. Are we a leader or a follower? We were involved in that process and it is disingenuous of Deputy Cuffe to suggest otherwise as he is aware that Ireland was one of the first countries to respond positively to the proposals. For example, I responded very positively at the first European Union Environment Council meeting held after the commitment was made and was the second or third speaker when the issue arose. I encouraged progress at a time when other member states were experiencing difficulties with the commitment. In Nairobi, during en marge meetings, many member states were strongly of the view that Europe should not propose a 30% commitment or give a unilateral commitment of 20%. The Taoiseach has supported the commitment in the European Council and I have supported it in the Environment Council.
Should Ireland be more ambitious and impose higher domestic requirements than those in place elsewhere in Europe or the world? While I do not question Deputy Cuffe's sincerity, I do not believe such an approach would be wise. Reading reports today on the UK budget, I noted that Britain's targets for 2050 are not as ambitious as those proposed by the Deputy. He has suggested writing into law a mandatory target of achieving a reduction in carbon emissions of between 60% and 80% by 2050. While his proposal is probably laudatory, it is also foolhardy. He is asking us to provide in law for meaningless targets to be met. The 60% target the British Government is considering including in the carbon Bill before the House of Commons is set against a policy of rebuilding nuclear power stations. Its policy is contingent on and self-enforcing of nuclear power.
It is not sensible for Ireland to be more ambitious than the most ambitious group of countries in the world, namely, Europe. We have a moral responsibility to encourage the European Union in the direction it is taking and we have given the Presidency and Commission strong support in this regard. However, I do not agree with the approach adopted by the Deputy and I am surprised that any other party in the House would do so. To frame in law the targets proposed would disadvantage Ireland and would not achieve any great purpose as it would allow countries which compete with us for foreign direct investment to portray Ireland as a no-go area.
This debate requires balance. Last week, we saw the extremist view of one side of the argument on a Channel 4 programme. We also have extremist views on the other side represented by the henny-penny school of environmentalism. If anything will destroy the logic underpinning the Kyoto Protocol and undermine the necessity to move forward on this issue, it will be extremism. There can be nothing more unwise than to enshrine in law impositions which would be destructive of Irish industry, particularly when they are far in advance of those proposed by the European Union. It makes no sense to introduce legally binding targets to be achieved 40 years hence when none of us will be in the House to speak on them.
The proposal goes further than the most ambitious targets. As I indicated, even the United Kingdom, where the carbon Bill is part and parcel of a process of preparing members of the public to accept the development of nuclear power, has not gone as far as Deputy Cuffe's proposal. His suggestion is impractical.
The Deputy indicated his proposal is informed by a moral imperative. While adopting a moral attitude on this matter is praiseworthy, we also have moral responsibilities to the 2 million who work here and the millions of others who will look for jobs here in the next ten, 15 or 40 years. We cannot push them onto the rack with some form of ideological commitment to a project such as that the Deputy proposes. While I do not for a moment doubt his sincerity, in practical terms his proposal is mad and does not make sense.
Deputy Morgan appears to believe I will not agree to publish a progress report. I indicated on Committee Stage that I will consider inserting in the national climate change strategy a provision to hold a debate. The strategy is the appropriate place to make such provision. The national development plan set a precedent for this approach as it includes a provision to hold a debate in the House. It offers a good way forward and I am prepared to make such a provision.
At the risk of straining the metaphor, in terms of emissions the good ship Ireland is not the flagship of the fleet. It is, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, a leaky old tub but Captain Roche has appeared and said all is fine because he met a fellow who will get us a few pumps from Kazakhstan and patch up some of the other ships. I suggest we fix the good ship Ireland's emissions, patch up the leaks and do not spoil the ship for a hapworth of tar. We need to simply reduce, repair, set targets, examine the charts and steer safely into port. This is all I ask.
I share Sir Nicholas Stern's belief that a stitch in time saves nine. As everyone else is arguing, we must get our ship in order. This is a good analogy. We must be prepared to make changes by altering course sooner rather than later. Simple measures, such as setting annual targets for reductions and reporting annually to the Oireachtas to give Members a report card informing us of how we are doing, are crucial.
I take issue with the Minister's use of the word "foolhardy" to describe setting good targets. This is not a foolhardy approach but a matter of providing leadership when the future of the planet is at stake. The people want such leadership and the Green Party is prepared to provide it.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 10.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 47.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Collins, Michael.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg.
Question declared carried.