Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 2007

Carbon Fund Bill 2006: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are related to amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 17 is consequential on those amendments. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, and 17 be discussed together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 29, to delete "1992".

I move this amendment on behalf of Deputy Gilmore, who will be here shortly. It is a small textual change. If we had thought back in 1992 that we would be in the position in which we are now, we would have torn out our hair in despair. We are faced with the appalling spectre of having to use €270 million of Irish taxpayers' money to pay our way out of obligations on climate change that would be better met by reducing our emissions.

Last year, emissions in the transport sector increased by 7%, while overall emissions increased by 2%. We are proceeding dangerously in the wrong direction, in a vehicle whose brakes have apparently failed and whose driver is simply unaware of the enormity of the challenge and does not have a map. If the driver is not inebriated, he is slightly over the limit.

In fact, the increase allowed for is twice the limit.

If the committee will pardon the metaphor, it is time we sobered up and put the vehicle of State back on track towards reducing our own emissions. First and foremost, we need to get our own house in order. The matter is urgent and reports — from the Stern review to the intergovernmental panel on climate change — have stated that a global catastrophe will unfold unless we take action now. The Stern review shows what a 2°, 3° or 4° increase in temperatures will do. A 2° increase will give us up to 10 million environmental refugees, while a 3° rise will result in tens of millions of people having to flee their homes. A 4° increase would result in hundreds of millions of people facing enormous dangers. It is important therefore that we should make a difference here and now, yet when it comes to making a difference there is a stunning response from the Minister. Locally, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown councillors decided to increase the efficiency standards for new homes in the county. When all 28 councillors agreed to a 40% decrease in climate change emissions, they were startled to see the Department making a written plea not to proceed with this improvement. The Department said the proposed improvements would be onerous and would create difficulties. We must move in that direction, however. In the absence of action at national level there is a moral obligation on us to move quickly at local level.

Faced with an annual construction output of perhaps 90,000 new homes, in five or six years time we will have built half a million homes. The energy rating of those homes will be seen in future to be below the required standards, so there is an urgent need to take action now. We need leadership in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to promote a level playing field nationwide. In the absence of the kind of improvements that are already occurring in the United Kingdom, we must support local authorities when they decide to make such changes at local level.

The Bill spells out clearly that we are using taxpayers' money to buy carbon abroad. It is the equivalent of putting rubbish into a neighbour's bin because one is generating too much — and not just doing so once, but year after year. We must change our ways and we have the ability to do so, but leadership is required from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

My proposals, together with Deputy Gilmore's, would help the Government to take the issue of climate change seriously. It could start by cleaning up our act here at home.

I thank Deputy Cuffe for kicking off for me and moving the amendment. Unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained for a few minutes. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17 together. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 17 are essentially drafting amendments and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to them. I note that the Minister is proposing an amendment to the definition of the Kyoto unit and I wish to pose a question in that regard. For our understanding of this issue, it is helpful to have percentages and tonnes of carbon reduced to the concept of a Kyoto unit. Going forward, to be talking in those terms will help our understanding of it. Even people who are quite knowledgeable about the issue of climate change and this whole issue could not tell the difference between a tonne of coal and a tonne of carbon.

I refer to the issue of Kyoto units. We are now 25% or 26% above the 1990 levels. How many Kyoto units are we above where we are supposed to be? Expressed in Kyoto units, what is the difference between 13% above and where we are, whether it is 25% or 26%? Arising from that, how many Kyoto units are we above the 1990s levels? Expressed in Kyoto units, what is the gap between the 1990 levels and where we are now?

I thank Deputy Gilmore for tabling the amendments, which are technical in nature. I will accept amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and 17. I have tabled amendment No. 4.

Deputy Cuffe, who has left the room, kicked off with his usual rant on the issue. I refer to a point he made yet again. No matter how often one tells a non-truth, it does not turn it into the truth. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle drawing his attention to the fact a letter has been misrepresented on the record of the Dáil. In the letter, which is to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, my Department commends the council for setting more ambitious targets. I do not understand what linguistic trickery turns the word "commend" into the word "condemn" unless someone has a problem with spelling. Deputy Cuffe is being quite disingenuous and he has again distorted the truth because we have commended Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.

Deputy Gilmore's amendment is very acceptable. Some 12% to 13% would be 6.5 million to 7 million tonnes in the units about which we speak.

Is that everything, including the emissions trading scheme?

No. This is before that. This is the gross figure which is more useful to the Deputy.

The straightforward gap, leaving out the ETS or from where it is coming, between 13% and where we are now is approximately 7 million tonnes.

Roughly speaking, it is approximately 7 million tonnes but it is probably slightly less than that.

If we were to go back to 1990 levels, presumably we are looking at approximately 14 million tonnes.

The Deputy should remember where we were. We have made some changes since 1990 which are starting to kick in. If we had operated on the same basis as 1990, our emission levels would be 78 million tonnes. As the Deputy knows, our target is 63 million tonnes. The difference is just over 15 million tonnes. We have accounted for 8 million tonnes in terms of domestic policies without talking about trading or purchasing, so that gives one a balance of 7 million tonnes. If one takes that 8 million tonnes from our existing schemes — this does not take in account recently announced projects or where we will be in two years' time — the figure is 7 millions tonnes. Had we done nothing, we would be at 78 million tonnes. Our target is to be at 63 million tonnes.

Is that 78 million—

It is 78 million tonnes.

That is the 26%.

No. I will give the Deputy the precise figures. The projected emissions over the period 2008 to 2012 is 78.2 million tonnes. We are currently at, or around, 70 million tonnes because we have taken 8 million out of that. We have to get to 63 million tonnes. The emissions reduction we are required to meet is a level of 15.2 million tonnes below where we were. Existing policies will achieve a reduction of 8 million tonnes and we will purchase 3.6 million tonnes. The remaining distance that must be found from new policies is 0.6 million tonnes. If one looks, for example, at some of the policy announcements in various areas, such as the biofuels or energy areas, these more than fill that 0.6 million tonnes. Participation by the ETS, the trading schemes, in Ireland is 3 million tonnes. I will provide the Deputy with a table with those figures if it would be helpful.

Am I correct that the total is about 7 million tonnes?

Yes. The Deputy's question as I understand it concerned the difference between the current position and where we must get, which is approximately 7 million tonnes. This does not take into account the 8 million tonnes reduction from existing policies, some of which will produce more. The reductions in some areas are quite surprising. For example, the figure for agriculture is approximately 2.4 million tonnes saved over the period in question. This is as a result of changes taking place in agriculture. However, that figure does not factor in changes as a result of implementation of the nitrates directive, which will bring marginal additional benefits. There are other benefits that are difficult to factor in and which we have not included because we prefer to underestimate rather than overestimate. We could, for example, consider that increased recycling and less use of landfill will bring marginal improvements. However, the broad figure the Deputy seeks is somewhere between 6.5 million and 7 million tonnes. Let us say 7 million.

Is the Minister saying that assuming everything falls into place, approximately 3.6 million of that figure must be purchased?

That is the upper limit of what must be purchased, but I believe less will have to be purchased.

How is it the upper limit? It must be purchased if we do not bridge the 0.6 million tonnes gap.

That is correct.

How can it be the upper limit if all of the existing policies, some of which I wonder about, only deliver the 8 million tonnes and if the ETS remains as it is at about 3 million tonnes? Why does the Minister say it is the upper limit when it is the minimum amount he will have to purchase?

That is not the case and is simply not true. That limit is the ceiling set by the Government. A series of other initiatives have yet to kick in, for example the biofuels initiatives and other changes —

Is the Minister saying that the Government can decide the maximum amount it will buy.

No. What I am saying is that we have set a target of 3.6 million tonnes.

The Minister said that is a maximum upper limit.

Yes, that is the upper limit.

Why is it not in the Bill?

The reason is because we will have other savings. The figure of 3.6 million tonnes was calculated on the basis of our position when the strategy was put in place. I believe policy, which the Deputy may dismiss, will contribute to reducing that further.

Let me give an example. If we move to co-fuelling in power stations, significant benefits will result. Deputy Gilmore made the point in our previous debate on this issue that there was a spike or increase in emissions levels in 2004-2005 because it was a strategic necessity to bring two new turf-burning power stations on stream. As soon as those two turf-burning power stations become co-fuelled emissions, levels will reduce, but the level of reduction will depend on the extent to which they are co-fuelled. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has set ambitious targets in that regard.

I am interested in what the Minister is saying and understand his act of faith in his own policies. It is very interesting that the Minister says 3.6 million tonnes is the upper limit. If that is the upper limit, we should set in this Carbon Fund Bill 2006 an upper limit for the purchase of carbon. We should remove from the Bill the open-ended formula that will allow the Minister to buy carbon in the future.

Can I tell the Deputy why that will not be the case?

I would like to make a further point before I allow the Minister to intervene. If the Minister had made this clear on Second Stage, I would have tabled an amendment on Committee Stage to set an upper limit of 3.6 million tonnes. I am giving the Minister notice that I will table an amendment on Report Stage to provide for the introduction of an upper limit. The Minister has said that 3.6 million is the maximum number of tonnes that the Government will have to buy. Therefore, it is the upper limit. He said that the Government will account for 8 million tonnes through the success of its policies. He said that the Government will bridge the gap of 0.6 million tonnes. He said he is fully confident that Ireland's participation in the EU emission trading scheme will come in at 3 million tonnes. I understand that he intends to do even more than all of that. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in setting an upper limit on the amount that is to be purchased.

An upper limit of 3.6 million tonnes is being set under this policy. I will address the issue if Deputy Gilmore tables an amendment on it. The Deputy referred to the possibility of Ireland's participation in the EU emission trading scheme coming in at 3 million tonnes. The scheme will come in at 3 million tonnes, which is the specific target that has been set.

The European Commission wants to change the target.

I know the Deputy wants to change it too.

I have never proposed a change in the target. I have drawn attention to the European Commission's proposal to change it.

The Deputy has spoken on a number of occasions about the Commission's proposal to reduce the allocation to the trading sector, but he has not addressed its absolutely dire consequences. After our last debate on the matter, when Deputy Cuffe raised the possibility of passing on to industry the full burden in this regard, I took the trouble to do some calculations on it.

Why does the Minister insist on distorting our position? That is not the position.

Deputy Gilmore should allow the Minister to finish. I will allow him back in.

The Minister is distorting the position we have outlined.

I picked two industries. An industry like Aughinish Alumina, in which the Chairman has expressed some interest, would have to carry an additional burden of €50 million between 2008 and 2012 under the specific proposal that was made by Deputy Cuffe. I do not mean to suggest that Deputy Gilmore made that argument.

I think the Minister—

Does any sane member of the committee believe that Aughinish Alumina would continue to operate if a burden of €50 million were to be imposed on it, which is what would happen if we were to follow Deputy Cuffe's logic?

The Minister has chosen instead to impose a burden of €270 million on Irish taxpayers.

The Deputy should allow the Minister to finish. I will allow him to speak at a later stage.

I addressed some of the other inaccuracies in Deputy Cuffe's comments when he was out of the room, but I will come back to them. If we follow the "logic" of Deputy Cuffe's position, we will impose a burden of €750 million on the ESB. What would that do to Irish industry, heavy energy users, household bills and small and medium-sized enterprises? Deputy Cuffe said that if we knew in 1992 where we would be today, we would have been tearing our hair out. That was an interesting comment — such Freudian slips are sometimes very interesting. Approximately 1 million people were working in this country in 1992, whereas over 2 million people are working here today. We still had net emigration in 1992, but we have net immigration today. Our economy has grown by approximately 140% since 1992. There has been a massive increase in population since that year. I would prefer to have such problems than the kind of sterility in Irish politics, employment and other areas of the economy that is espoused by Deputy Cuffe.

Did the Minister refer to virility or sterility?

I referred to sterility. Senility is also setting in. I would prefer to have the problems we currently face than the problems that Deputy Cuffe would impose on Irish business if he had his way. If his policy were to be applied, it would lead to the closure of the Aughinish Alumina plant. Its production would be driven from this country to God knows where — it would probably end up somewhere outside the EU where lesser standards apply. The 500 people who work in that industry would lose their jobs, as would at least another 500 people in associated industries. I disagree with the Deputy but respect his view.

If one were to take the logic of his position on carbon trading to its conclusion, one would impose charges on 109 companies, including a charge of €750 million on the ESB. The Deputy may be correct that this would have a cathartic effect on the company as it would be forced to examine how it generates electricity. However, it would, in the interim, drive hundreds of thousands of people into unemployment.

A semblance of balance is required in the debate. While I agree that we face a challenge and must do everything in our power to reach our Kyoto target, we must also apply logic. Visiting mayhem on Irish industry is not the way forward. If the Green Party policy were to be applied, one would create a desert and call it peace, which would not be an achievement. I do not seek to exonerate Ireland from our moral obligations — we must accept them — but we produce a tiny amount of emissions in world terms. If we were to adopt the approach suggested by the Deputy, we would cause mayhem and fail to achieve the international results we seek.

The point I am making—

Has Deputy Gilmore finished? It is only fair to give the other party spokespersons an opportunity to contribute before allowing members to contribute a second time.

I will respond to the Minister in due course.

I accept in principle the need for an emissions trading scheme. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by one tonne is effective, irrespective of where on the planet it is done. I also acknowledge that the emissions trading scheme is working. For example, the cement industry in Platin, near Drogheda, is renewing its system by introducing a process which will significantly reduce its CO2 emissions. Key energy users such as the cement industry are changing their ways and investing in new processes. At the same time, they are deciding to maintain their operations in Ireland, thereby guaranteeing employment to another generation. These are all positive developments.

One of the reasons for the decline in CO2 emissions in agriculture is the reduction in the number of animals. The Departments of Agriculture and Food and Environment, Heritage and Local Government have had no role in this regard. The change is simply due to farmers having fewer animals.

I did not make any claims to the contrary. This development is a natural product of changes in agriculture and CAP reform.

CO2 emissions in agriculture are falling due to market forces as opposed to Government policy. I do not wish to labour the point but we need to tackle areas in which emissions are out of control and the Government is failing to do so. Emissions in transport and a number of other key areas must be addressed.

The Government has decided to enact legislation without, as Deputy Gilmore noted, establishing a cross-departmental Government strategy that imposes targets across the board. I concur with Deputies Gilmore and Cuffe that a degree of severity is required on this issue. The emissions trading scheme must not be used as a "get out of jail" card. Buying CO2 permits from other countries to allow us to produce additional CO2 generates fewer costs for us because other approaches could affect jobs. Nevertheless, in doing this equation one must have an integrated policy on which everyone signs off. In the absence of such an integrated policy, the legislation, while necessary and acceptable under the terms of the Kyoto protocol, does not go far enough.

What steps does the Government intend to take to support and invest in renewable energy sources and research and development? Is it possible to invest some of the €250 million or €275 million allocated to the carbon fund in these areas? Is it possible to inform universities and companies willing to invest in new projects that some of this fund will be spent here?

The view is that if taxpayers' money is being spent, it is preferable that it is spent on proposals which will help us to change our technology, increase our use of renewables and invest in research and development. I would like to see the emphasis being put on this area.

I agree with Deputy O'Dowd in almost everything he said. He eloquently illustrated the logic of the European trading scheme, ETS, which is a good one. As Mr. de Boer, executive secretary to the United Nations climate change conference, stated, the purchase of carbon credits is not a get out of jail clause, rather it is a provision in the Kyoto Protocol that allows developed countries to set ambitious targets, to deliver cuts in carbon emissions in a global sense and to do so in a way that is not injurious to industry or jobs in those countries, while at the same time assisting developing countries. The best example is the one the Deputy chose, namely, cement. It is a classic example, as the industry is a very heavy energy user. It is not one everybody wants to have next door. If a higher imposition were to be imposed and we were to break the rules and penalise the industry by charging for every tonne of carbon emitted, it would close down. We do not have any choice but to allocate tonnage on a free basis under the rules.

The Minister is missing my point, which is that the ETS has changed the modus operandi of the cement industry.

I am getting to that point.

Therefore, the issue does not arise because it is being dealt with under the system currently in place.

The Deputy is correct. It is the best example we have of an industry that has made a dramatic change. There are others, but the change is less dramatic. The cement industry is a classic example. We interpreted the rules in a severe way. We previously discussed the issue of calciners and Premier Periclase Limited. Deputy O'Dowd referred to it. We determined the matter in a very specific way but it was determined more loosely by other countries. Ultimately, Irish industry is rising to the challenge. The Deputy is correct; if one overdoes it, the industry will close and cement production will move to Egypt or some other country. This is an issue facing Europe, especially the Iberian Peninsula. Cement is being imported from North Africa that is produced in the least attractive way from an environmental point of view. It is encouraging additional carbon usage in as regards the transportation process but the cement is still needed. There is logic to the trading scheme. The Deputy is correct that it should not be used to buy one's way out of prison but it is not being used that way.

The Minister has not responded to the point I made. I asked what plans he intended to introduce.

The Deputy is correct. I have not responded.

I specifically asked whether the fund could be used to support research and development and projects in this country that might not necessarily be viable. It appears that, if it is possible, we should support people here rather than in other parts of the world.

It is good to see the Deputy back. He was not a victim of carbon.

The assassination attempt failed. I will not say whom I hold responsible.

I was not in New York at the time.

It was not any member of the Minister's party.

I am free.

Or the Progressive Democrats.

It could have been a member of the Deputy's own party.

It was carbon monoxide emissions.

The Deputy made two points with which I fully agree. He said that in this area, more than most, there was an absolute need for joined-up thinking within a whole series of Government policies. He is correct. That is why we have established a Cabinet sub-committee to deal with this issue. It covers the areas of transport, energy, agriculture—

The point is the Minister does not—

Let me finish the point. Finance is also covered. It is a cross-cutting issue. Finance and taxation policies underpin and support energy policy. In the energy document published this week, Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland, they are integrated into the strategy. When the strategy document is published on 2 April, the integration will be obvious.

Transport is a problem because there are 2.2 million private cars but we are investing more than ever in public transport, although some would argue we are not doing it quickly enough. I agree there must be integration across Government policy and that is happening. When the climate change strategy review is published people will see that.

Having read the summary of the energy policy, much of it is based in the future. We want to see the nuts and bolts of the policies, we want the limits set and we want to know where the money will go and how much of it will be spent in Ireland to support carbon reduction schemes, particularly research and development.

It is not part of this fund but there is money for research and development — €150 million is set aside in the national development plan for energy research. There are exciting prospects for Ireland. I have always believed in the potential of wave and tidal energy. When I was on the same side of the fence as Deputy Cuffe, arguing that we did not need a nuclear power station in Carnsore, I made that point. There is a proposal for research into a one quarter scale tidal energy generator by 2009.

This money is leaving the country to reduce CO2 on a cost basis but we want the reductions to happen here. If the ETS is to work, we must cut back on our emissions.

That cannot happen under this mechanism. This Bill is to facilitate the purchase, it is an option. It is necessary because the Commission, in response to our second national allocation programme, took issue with our failure to enact the necessary legislation or spend the money for the purchase of carbon credits.

We have exceeded our Kyoto targets by some distance.

We face a challenge.

We need more strategic plans before we spend this money. We have not put our house in order. I accept the EPS is working but we must tackle the other areas. If we do not, this will be seen as passing the buck.

Transport is a challenge but about a quarter of the diesel sold in this country is bought by fleets registered outside the State. Add to that the fuel tourism petrol sales and it accounts for over 2 million tonnes of the 3.6 million tonnes of fuel that we buy — more than half of our sales. Is that a loss to the Irish taxpayer? It is until one starts working out the excise duties collected on these sales to out-of-State vehicles. In one year, the duties would cover the entire cost of our purchases over the entire Kyoto period. Revenue and excise on sales of fuels to out-of-State vehicles comes to €370 million per year. That can be put against the costs of the Kyoto period.

I accept it is not an excuse, as Deputy Cuffe said, to not try to further cut carbon emissions, but it puts it into a better context. Ireland and Luxemburg are at the top of the league table for transport carbon emissions. The recent 140% rise in our transport emissions arose because of a significant increase in car ownership. It also arose because of the extraordinarily high proportion of out-of-State sales, so-called fuel tourism sales. This has not been factored into the debate.

Does the Minister consider spending €270 million on buying carbon credits is like paying rent for a property instead of buying one? Steps should be taken to eliminate the necessity to buy carbon credits.

I do not think the analogy stands up.

I beg to differ.

That is fine. I am sure the constituents in Galway would not be enamoured if the Government were to pass on the €750 burden million to the ESB, thereby shoving up the price of domestic electricity.

I do not want the Minister to do that.

I am not suggesting the Deputy would follow such a route. The consequences, however, of not buying carbon credits are more expensive than of doing so. The social and local economic consequences of closing the Aughinish Alumina plant would far outweigh the costs of how the Government is proposing to deal with it.

As Deputy O'Dowd has argued, the European trading scheme is working because a price has been set on carbon, forcing industry to think lean. This is the point made by Nicholas Stern's report. Although there are some costs that we must bear now, it is far better for Europe, including Ireland, to bear them now and make the adjustments. When this has been achieved, Europe, including Ireland, will become a low carbon economy. Our prospects will be better than those of gas-guzzling economies like the US.

Deputy Cuffe made a comparison as to how well Britain is doing in cutting emissions. I have one caution for the Deputy. I would not take any lessons from the United Kingdom on this matter. Its response has been a craven one to be pro-nuclear. It is astonishing that the debate on global warming and moving to a low carbon economy is driven by the nuclear lobby in a most cynical way.

They have billing standards.

Deputy Cuffe points to the virtue of the UK setting carbon targets. That is a clever political ploy to force anti-nuclear people like the Deputy and me from the debate. It is a cynical ploy to shut down the debate. The idea that going nuclear is somehow fine eludes me. Such an option will simply impose a larger problem on several different generations. If there was a nuclear power station in Jerusalem during the time of Christ, we would still be dealing with the mess now. I cannot understand the logic of the nuclear debate. That logic underpins the UK recently being enamoured by the concept of carbon targets. The debate in Europe and across the globe has been significantly highlighted by those who are pro-nuclear and we should resist that.

I welcome the response, although it is misdirected. I applaud Ireland's economic success, and we are all recorded as having done so for the past 15 years. The problem is that, internationally, we are changing from being a model of economic success to being the poster boy for bad behaviour, since our emissions have increased more than those of almost any other country in Europe. That is nothing of which we might be proud and the terrible thing is that it is possible for us to change our ways. I have problems with the European emissions trading scheme. It was not right to give away licences to pollute scot-free and I would not have started from there.

Be that as it may, we must now deal with what is happening. I suggest that we in Ireland should promote and assist sunrise industries, with high-specification, well-insulated buildings instead of those built with hollow-block walls, wind energy instead of peat-fired power stations and eco-cement instead of the traditional variety. I am not sure where the Minister stands on the issue. From his comments and his naming of one industry in particular, it is clear that he wishes to support traditional industries and lacks the requisite interest in the sunrise alternatives that the Green Party supports.

It is not merely a matter of economic development but of getting the balance right. Last year, we spent six times as much on roads as on public transport and it is no accident that our transport emissions increased by 7%. We are haemorrhaging carbon emissions; the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have a direct role in policy formulation to address that, but I have not been impressed hitherto.

The Minister issued an interesting graph in a press release dated 16 February. In essence it showed what will happen from 2008 to 2012. Ireland will purchase credits from 2008 to 2012, inclusive, and I am not sure when that is to stop. The Minister is signing a blank cheque and goodness knows where his sense of leadership lies when it comes to meeting future requirements under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Minister is effectively using the children's allowance to take a holiday in the sun. It will not be today or this week but for every future week, month and year. That is not the way to proceed and he must see the error of his ways on the matter. On the doorsteps, people are extremely irate in this regard. Older men, who traditionally did not have too much time for the party that I represent, are mad as hell. Night after night they say to me that the Minister is spending €270 million of Irish taxpayers' money on carbon credits and they are very angry. I do not know whether the Minister is hearing that on the doorsteps, but I certainly am. He should change his ways by improving building regulations, making it possible for the home consumer to sell electricity back to the national grid and doing all those things about which the Green Party has been talking for many years.

Smart meters are mentioned in the White Paper.

Yes, and so is VRT.

If one is honest with people on the doorsteps when discussing this very serious matter, pointing out that possible consequences of full imposition on such industries include adding €750 million to ESB bills, throwing 500 people out of their jobs at Aughinish Alumina and ending cement production on this island and moving it to a far more polluting country, they may take a different and more balanced view than the Deputy. Far from being the bold boy in the class, Ireland is an exemplar of precisely what Kofi Annan raised six years ago.

Sir Nicholas Stern says in his report that it is possible to make economic progress and decouple from some of the problems of the past. As the Deputy says, the economy has grown by 150% in the period since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed. Most welcome this. However, we have increased our carbon emissions in the period by 25%, which is less welcome. The Deputy is right that there is a major challenge as regards transport. That is why we have ratcheted up the significant investment in transport.

What is the endgame?

The endgame in public transport, for example, is to continue to improve on what is already an improving target.

Is that a ratio of 6:1?

The Deputy should look at the situation and try to be more balanced in his commentary. A few short years ago there were no Luas lines in this city; now there are two.

They do not even join up.

I know that. I also know there are policies in place to join them up, but I am making the point that Luas carried 26 million passengers in its first year. Its current capacity is 80,000 per day. The DART, the capacity of which has been doubled in the last five years and which services the Deputy's constituency and mine, is a superb service which now carries 90,000 passengers per day. However, the improvements do not go far enough. We want them to go much further. That is why we are investing billions in public transport.

Why are tens of billions being invested in roads and only billions in public transport? Why is there a factor of 6:1 when we saw a 7% increase last year?

The simple answer is that there will never be a Luas line running all the way to Carlingford, for example, or to Roundwood or anywhere else one might choose. There will always be a mix. The population dispersal pattern in Ireland is unique, with 40% choosing to live outside urban areas. We should not try to force anything on them. However, this pattern has transport implications. As the Deputy knows, one of the problems with public transport is that services tend to run from point A to point B. Work has to be done to join them up. Yes, work on the the metro system and the Luas extension is under way. There are plans to extend the line to Cherrywood—

What is the transport solution, given that the level of emissions was up 7% last year? The Minister cannot be serious.

The answer is not to wring one's hands but to put policies in place that will actually help to extend public transport, on the one hand while, on the other, significantly substituting biofuels and more energy efficient vehicles.

Public transport is still only getting the crumbs of the transport cake. The ratio of 6:1 is wrong—

We shall have to agree to disagree.

I believe so.

I am disappointed at the Minister's line of argument. He has adopted a debating style which has been relied upon by every reactionary in history to paint an apocalyptic picture. Those of us who argue for carbon emission reductions are now being accused by the Minister of being either pro-nuclear energy or wanting to close down industry. I am sure he will recall the debates which took place about 30 years ago when the Labour Party in government was introducing the concept of equal pay for women. The same type of argument was used to say—

I hate to be pedantic, but it was actually imposed on the Government of the day because of a young woman who took the Belgian Government and the Belgian airline to the European Court of Justice.

The Equal Pay Act was introduced by a Labour Party Minister—

As a result of a finding of the European Court of Justice.

Will the Minister please allow Deputy Gilmore to continue without interruption?

The record will show that legislation to improve the rights of workers has always been a feature of the times the Labour Party has been in government, usually after a prolonged period of neglect on the part of Fianna Fáil, unfortunately, and misrule, as it was then. The same type of argument was made at the time, to the effect that if the concept of equal pay was introduced, industry would close down or flee and that it could not be afforded. The Minister is using precisely the same logic now as regards the issue of carbon emission reductions.

There is an obvious choice of options facing the country as regards how we meet our Kyoto Protocol commitments. There is a firm commitment to reduce emissions and put measures in place. The Minister's alternative proposal is that we make an act of faith in the Government's policies and buy the balance. We must put the emphasis on carbon reduction rather than carbon purchase. The Bill proposes to give the Minister the power to buy an unlimited amount of carbon. The Minister will be allowed to buy the balance.

In response to my earlier question about the amount of carbon credits involved under the Kyoto Protocol, the Minister stated confidently that 3.6 million tonnes was the upper limit. The Minister is either confident in the measures he claims the Government is implementing to reduce carbon or he is not. If he is confident in what the Government is doing in reducing carbon, he will have no difficulty in committing himself to the upper limit and to putting such a provision in this Bill that will allow the Government to buy up to 3.6 million tonnes. The Minister indicated that he was confident that reductions would go well beyond the 8 million mark, that the ETS would remain as it is and that the 0.6 million target would be met without a problem. If the Minister is so confident in that, we should limit the purchase to 3.6 million tonnes. Of course, the Minister is not confident in that. He knows as well as we do that he is spoofing. He talks about the measures to reduce carbon when he has absolutely no confidence that he will achieve it. If he had the confidence in it, he would commit to the upper limit.

Let us put this commitment to the test. The Minister said there would be a reduction of 8 million tonnes as a result of measures proposed by the Government, that 3 million tonnes would come from the ETS, that he was confident that 0.6 million tonnes would be found and that therefore the upper limit was 3.6 million. He should put that in the Bill. If he does not put it in the Bill, it is an admission that he will not meet it. It is also a clear indication to this committee, to the House and to the public that what is 3.6 million tonnes today will be 4.6 million tonnes or 5.6 million tonnes in the future.

The Minister must put an upper limit in the Bill. He must cap the amount that is being purchased and put his money where his mouth is.

The Bill is a technical measure which provides a mechanism for the purchase of carbon credits. It goes no further than that. It is a technical measure required to facilitate the purchase of credits. The strategy document, which will bring all the policies together, will be published in two weeks. If one looks at the document, one will see that the targets are well achievable. Between 1.3 and 2.3 million tonnes can be removed through the use of renewables. In industry, the carbon trading scheme will remove 3 million tonnes. The changes in the CAP will produce changes worth 2.4 million tonnes. There will be changes in forestry. The new building regulations as they stand, without going the further 40%, will take out 300,000 tonnes. There have already been significant changes in transport which have delivered.

The figure of 3.6 million tonnes is a matter of public policy. The document before us is a technical document. It does not have these various targets in it for very cogent reasons. The Deputy and I will have to differ on this. Not to include specific targets or specific binding figures in the Bill is the appropriate way to deal with this matter, not the way suggested by the Deputy. The appropriate way to deal with the targets is to set them out in the strategy, which will be published on 2 April.

The Minister was wise not to refute the spoofing charge — that was a good start. He is lucky we have been in a relatively strong economic position for the past number of years because the taxpayers almost did not notice the Government shovelling this €270 million down the drain.

As a point of information, we have not shovelled the €270 million down the drain.

The only thing missing is the shovel. The drain is there and the money is gone.

To be helpful to the Deputy—

The Minister is very helpful.

—that is an awful way to refer to—

That is how it is.

To exaggerate as the Deputy is doing—

It is no exaggeration.

The Deputy should ask his questions and the Minister can respond.

This is a better way. Some interaction is preferable.

The Minister can respond later.

I invite the Minister to respond. It is obscene to waste money in this way and to make virtually no effort to put in place measures to check this. We are talking about imposing limits by 2020. If we are unfortunate and the Government is returned after this election, I am sure it will carry on merrily as it has for the past ten years by completely ignoring any real measures. As an example, why is the 4% public service provision on ESB bills not ring-fenced for research and development or diverted in some constructive way rather than just going down the drain with the rest of this €270 million?

The Government has had no concept of innovation. To be fair, this does not only apply to the current Minister but to the others who served in the past ten years, who were equally bad or, arguably, even worse than him.

I thank the Deputy for that.

It is a minor concession. However, the Minister has not improved the situation on his watch.

That is not true.

The Minister has not been visionary. We need vision and commitment brought to this issue. We need somebody with an environmental edge sitting in that seat and saying we will turn this around. There has been no sign of that from any Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who served under this Government, which has been a great loss. When the economy begins to tighten — we see signs it may do so — this will bite very severely and we will have missed a great opportunity to deal with this issue once and for all.

I completely oppose the Bill. We should simply not be making provision to buy carbon credits. This should be part of a package. I would accept it as an interim step as part of a range of measures but the Minister has not proposed this. He has been trying to talk the talk in publications and by publishing documents and figures in recent months in an effort to hoodwink the electorate but he has not taken any serious measures to check this matter in any way.

I will allow the Minister to respond and perhaps I will have another go at him before we finish.

On the issue of hoodwinking, the Deputy is a fair hand at it himself. I acknowledge the Deputy was not present for the earlier debate so let us deal with the specifics. First and foremost, the purchase of carbon credits is not just an idea of the Irish Government. It is, after all, an integral part of the Kyoto—

But Minister—

The Deputy should allow the Minister to respond. I must insist on this.

I forgive the Deputy as I also interrupted a fair amount. It is part and parcel of Kyoto. The 170 countries who signed up to the treaty accepted it, not just the Irish Government. The 40 governments which are part of the protocol accepted it. The European Commission accepted it. Ten of the 15 member states of the EU as it then was including, significantly, all of the non-nuclear member states, accepted it because it is part of their national allocation programmes. Al Gore accepted it, as did the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

Sir Nicholas Stern writes extensively in his report on the issue of carbon credits. With respect, if I were to put the opinions of Deputies Morgan and Cuffe on one side and those of all these people on the other, the latter would weigh slightly more heavily in my consideration of the issue. Deputy Morgan made a valid point without taking on board its implications. There is a period when a country must consider which is the better way to go on this issue. The best way is obviously to meet all one's Kyoto targets through domestic measures. This is not always possible, however. In our case, some one fifth of our commitment will be met through the purchase of credits. In such cases, one must look at the most moral way of doing that. Deputy Morgan is incorrect in saying we have spent €270 million in purchasing credits — the correct figure is €40 million.

The Government has budgeted for €270 million.

That is the budget for the entire NDP period, not for a single year.

The mechanisms we employ in this regard are positive as they serve to assist developing countries. In this respect, I take exception to the Deputy's characterisation of the purchase of carbon credits. The mechanisms we have used, including the World Bank and the EBRD, provide support to developing countries. This includes, for example, a greenhouse gas emissions reduction programme in Moldova.

Is it charity?

I would not say that.

The Minister cannot have it every way.

Another programme on the World Bank list is a project to supply solar cooking apparatus to people in Africa. They do not face the same challenges as we do because they do not have the same level of activity in terms of industry, energy supply or electricity generation. Women in some parts of Africa spend half their day looking for tindering to cook the family dinner. In doing so, they damage their ecosystems. Is it not a positive approach to assist these people in lifting the yoke from their shoulders and providing them with clean energy technology rather than leaving them in the vulnerable position they would face if these mechanisms were not in place?

Much of this effort is principally to protect our extravagant lifestyles.

Deputy Cuffe can shout all he likes but his views are outweighed by those of people such as Kofi Annan. I say this in no disrespectful way. Mr. Annan knows more about this issue than does the Deputy. Sir Nicholas Stern, likewise, has offered a wonderful economic interpretation of the issue and I must give more weight to his view.

The reality is that one can achieve a doubly virtuous outcome. As Deputy O'Dowd said, one can take a tonne of carbon out of the atmosphere and at the same time help somebody else. Mr. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, made the same point in Nairobi. Deputy Morgan may shake his head but these are people who have spoken on the record and who know much about this.

They are not saying what the Minister is saying.

The executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change knows a reasonable amount about this issue.

His argument is that we should first get our own house in order. That is what we are saying also.

No, he is on record as saying that the purchase of carbon credits is a mechanism that allows a developed country such as Ireland — although he did not mention Ireland — to be ambitious in achieving its targets of removing carbon from the atmosphere without damaging its own economic welfare, while at the same time helping the developing world to avoid making the same mistakes we in the developed world have made. Deputy Morgan is entitled to disagree but that is the reality.

I disagree with the Minister.

I simply refer to what the experts, including Mr. de Boer, have said.

The Minister is misquoting them.

No, I am not.

The Minister is.

I am quoting Nicholas Stern. Can the Deputy show me where I am misquoting?

Just one example—

The Deputy is spoofing.

The Minister to continue without interruption.

I am not misquoting them.

The Minister is.

I am not misquoting them. My academic training and orientation are to avoid misquoting people and I do not do so. I am not doing so. The Deputy certainly was not present when Mr. de Boer made his contribution to the Paris conference. I was present and this is what he said. The Deputy should not assert that I am misquoting such experts when I am not.

The Minister is misquoting. However, he is correct in that I did not attend the Paris conference. The concept he is presenting is that Ireland is doing a wonderful job by giving money to some African countries in exchange for their carbon credits. He suggests Ireland is putting food on their tables or helping them to so do and that this is a wonderful way to proceed. Internationally, however, no one is saying this. Others state one must make a serious effort to begin to put one's own house in order. Once one begins to implement the roadmap, one way to purchase carbon credits is to go to such countries. However, this does not constitute a solution in either the medium or long term.

To put the figures in context, between one quarter and one fifth of the burden we must bear under the Kyoto Protocol will be met in purchasing credits. The Deputy is correct in respect of putting one's house in order. However, when doing so, one should not shut it down. Prior to the Deputy's arrival, I made a wider point in respect of the emissions trading scheme, ETS, on the cost of not adopting the approach presented to us in the Kyoto treaty. For example, neither the Deputy nor his party would support placing an imposition of €750 million on the ESB.

With respect to Deputy Gilmore, this is not a debating point. These are facts. We are where we are and must—

No one proposed that; the Minister is opposing something no one ever suggested.

I do not wish to become involved in a personal argument with the Deputy. However, he should check the Official Report of the Dáil debate on the ETS that took place some time ago. He made the point that the carbon allowances to the companies participating in the ETS should not have been given away.

They should not have been given away in the manner in which the Minister's predecessor did so. He made a hames of it, just as he has made a hames of many other matters.

The Deputy misunderstands the manner in which the system works.

I did not misunderstand it.

Earlier, when the Deputy may have been temporarily absent, Deputy Cuffe made the point that the scheme under which the European trading scheme operated provided that 90% of the credits for industry had to be allocated and not sold to industry.

How much did the Government allocate?

The Government allocated all bar the-----

What percentage was allocated?

A total of 99%.

As the requirement was 90%, why was so much allocated? That is my point. The Government allocated and gifted more than was required. While it could have held an auction, it did not.

I may have misled the Deputy. A total of 89.5% of their allocations was allocated free of charge, which was appropriate. As I pointed out to him, the alternative would have been to impose the equivalent of an additional €50 million in the period 2008 to 2012 on a concern such as Aughinish Alumina.

No, the Minister is not—

Sorry Deputy, the figures are available.

That is the apocalyptic argument. The point is that when it came to the national allocations plan, the Government allocated — "grandfathered" was the term used — the maximum amount that could be grandfathered and minimised the amount that could be auctioned. Aside from whether this constituted a giveaway, it was also acting unfairly against new entrants to industry. For example, one of the relatively new entrants which felt particularly aggrieved by such an allocation system was the green cement industry. However, I do not wish to reopen that debate, as the issue has been raised at this committee previously. This is the point. It was not the fact that they were allocated. Nobody disputes the fact of their allocation, which everyone understood to be part of the ETS scheme. It was the way the Government did it that was at issue.

The point the Deputy makes about green or eco-cement has been made several times. I am aware of it, have met the company several times and am aware of its feelings on it. The problem with that company is that under the scheme established by the Commission, which is a directive rather than something that is other than obligatory on us, it is not possible to allocate in that case. Although I am sympathetic to its case, it is just not possible to do this. There are rules established by a directive which we must apply.

We have had a long and interesting debate on four amendments which I accept.

I thank the Minister for accepting these amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 30, to delete "signed" and substitute "done".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 33, to delete "1997 Kyoto Protocol to the Convention" and substitute the following:

"Kyoto Protocol to the Convention done at Kyoto on 11th December 1997".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete lines 34 to 37 and substitute the following:

" "Kyoto Unit" means a unit, equivalent to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide, issued pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol and the decisions adopted pursuant to the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.".

Members have indicated that they support this amendment because they see it brings clarity. It means that a Kyoto unit means a unit equivalent to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide issued pursuant to the protocol and the decisions adopted pursuant to the convention and protocol. It is actually substituting the equivalent of the index of the quality of the air, IQUA.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete "or future".

This is a very important amendment. The Bill as it stands will give the Minister the power to purchase carbon in the form of Kyoto units. As drafted, the Bill states that it will give the Minister that power to purchase those Kyoto units on behalf of the State on foot of existing and future agreements to which the State is or becomes bound.

We are obviously bound by existing agreements. Essentially, we are talking about round one of the Kyoto Protocol. The Minister is asking the Oireachtas to give him the power to purchase an indefinite amount of carbon for an indefinite period for and in respect of international agreements to which the State has not yet become a party. In effect, he is asking Dáil Éireann to write a blank cheque for him to buy carbon into the future.

There may be people in Government who have no difficulty with blank cheques, but it is not the way to run the country's finances. There is long-established practice in Dáil Éireann for the management of the country's finances. We have a procedure whereby expenditure by Government must be voted upon by the Dáil. It is done by vote, which is why we have an Estimates process, a budget and appropriations Bills to provide what is, or should be, a framework accountable for the country's finances.

It is unprecedented for a Minister to come before Dáil Éireann or an Oireachtas select committee and ask for permission to buy indefinitely something over which we have no future control. This amendment seeks to ensure that while we give the Minister the authority to purchase carbon in respect of existing agreements to which the State is party, he should not be given the power to purchase carbon in respect of future agreements whose content we do not yet know and whose consequences we have no way of calculating. In addition, we do not know the amount to which we are committing the State. I want an idea of what this will cost.

The Minister told the committee the maximum amount we must buy is 3.6 million units per annum from 2008, but he is not prepared to put that amount in the Bill. What is the cost of 3.6 million units at the current price of carbon? What will be the annual cost? What will the total cost be and what estimates has the Minister made as to what the future commitments are likely to be? Before he attended the Environment Council meeting, he told the committee he expected the European Union's commitment to reduce carbon emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 to be implemented in Ireland on a burden-sharing basis. Taking the Minister's optimistic view that we will reach 1990 levels, to what are we signing up and what is the estimated cost of such a future agreement? We cannot have an open-ended commitment to purchase carbon at whatever cost to the taxpayer. We must have some sense of what we are doing.

I propose to delete the reference to future agreements. If a future agreement requires additional carbon purchases, let the Minister or whoever happens to be in his seat go before the House and seek the authority to do so. I do not agree with the open-ended provisions of the Bill.

Characterising the Bill as a blank cheque and open-ended commitment is not truthful. I draw the committee's attention to subsection 3(3), which states:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, having regard to the obligations of the State under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, pay into the Carbon Fund in the financial year 2006 and each subsequent financial year, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such amounts as he or she determines.

It is not an open-ended figure. The moneys must be voted through the accounts of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government by the Oireachtas.

The Deputy asked about tonnage figures. He is right in that the cost per tonne varies, but it has never been the "apocalyptic" figure, to use his word, that he has forecast. It is approximately €10 per tonne. The Government has made €270 million available to purchase credits between now and 2013. That amount will be subject to review in light of our progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The price on which the €270 million figure is based is €15 per tonne, but the price fell to as low as €8. It fluctuates, but it has always been less than €15.

Where in the Bill is the figure of €270 million stated?

It is not. It is stated in the national development programme. The amount of money set aside by the Government for an individual project at any time is a matter of public policy.

Any cheque that does not have a figure on it is a blank cheque. The Minister says that he wants authority. There is nothing ambiguous in the provision. To meet our obligations, the Bill states:

The Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, establish a fund to be known as and in this Act referred to as the Carbon Fund for the purpose, subject to subsection (8), of acquiring on behalf of the State, including on foot of existing or future agreements to which the State is or becomes bound, Kyoto Units and any other such instruments or assets in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, and for any purpose associated with or incidental to the fulfilment of that function.

This gives the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the authority to buy whatever amount of carbon he wants or needs. There is no limit on it either by tonnage or cost. It is not even limited to the existing Kyoto agreement. It will create a new national debt. We do not know what the amount will be.

I have seen very few Bills dealing with public policy state what the final budget for that policy will be. Precedents exist for payments from the Central Fund being repaid from moneys Voted by the Oireachtas and it tends to be how payments are made to the Central Fund. The legislation which relates to guarantees or borrowing from the Minister for Finance provides that the Minister must make a payment on foot of a guarantee that the payment was made from the Central Fund and the body on whose behalf the guaranteed payment is made has a repayment requirement.

This is not unprecedented. To suggest this is a blank cheque is a perverse misrepresentation. The Deputy is entitled to do so but I am entitled to point out the great bulk of legislation deals with public policies and does not contain the upper, lower or middle figure he mentioned. It happens through the Estimates process. The Deputy and I are long enough around the House to realise this is how the funding mechanism works at central government level and where the control of the Oireachtas is exercised.

I am also long enough around to dispute the Minister's argument that this Bill is normal. The explanatory memoranda I have seen on Bills which involve a cost to the State outline the estimated cost. I can see no reference anywhere in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill as to what this will cost.

The procedure—

May I make a point? This Bill establishes a framework for the future. It does not deal with the Estimates process.

That is the point. Consider what it will establish. Leaving aside the environmental dimension and considering the State's financial accountability, it will establish an arrangement whereby the Minister can buy carbon and, under section 3, at the following Estimates process reconcile the books by putting the provision in the Department's Estimate. At that stage it will be a done deal and the carbon will have been bought.

At Estimates stage, the Minister will come before the committee with an Estimate. He states it will be €270 million. In a couple of years' time it might be €500 million or €700 million. We do not know what will be the price of carbon or how much will be on the market. We certainly do not know what future agreements we will enter. The Minister does not know anymore than I do what the burden-sharing arrangement will be for the new 20% below 1990 levels. He states it will come in at approximately 1990 levels but he cannot put a figure on it.

This commits public expenditure of an unspecified amount using an unprecedented framework and formula. It would be something if one had a formula whereby it must be Voted on before the carbon is purchased. However, this provides the House will Vote on the expenditure after the carbon is purchased. It has no control over it.

The issue raised by the Deputy is more relevant to amendments Nos. 7 and 9 but we might as well have the debate at this stage. The idea of advancing funds through the Central Fund in the manner proposed here is not unprecedented.

It is for this amount.

I ask the Deputy to allow me to finish. Routing the carbon fund directly through the Central Fund as and when required is certainly the most efficient and effective way of addressing the Kyoto requirements and the purchase of Kyoto units. Specifically, that approach gives the NTMA the flexibility it needs to take advantage of opportunities in the carbon market while keeping it under direction because it cannot simply buy any questionable units which seem to offer cost advantages. In determining the most efficient and effective means by which to fund the acquisition of carbon credits, my Department has consulted the Department of Finance and will continue to do so.

I have listened carefully to Deputy Gilmore's arguments but I do not think the danger he outlined is real. This is simply a framework mechanism to allow funds which pass through the Central Fund to be used for the purchase of credits by the NTMA in a way that is subject to guidance. Problems may arise at a later stage in terms of my Department giving guidance to the NTMA, so the two points are a little contradictory. The framework simply facilitates the use of funds which pass through Central Fund to the NTMA in the pursuit of public policy. It is certainly not a blank cheque, as the Deputy would portray it.

The Minister estimates the present price of carbon at €10 per tonne and believes it may decrease to €8.

No, I said the price had dropped but has since risen again.

If at any particular time carbon is seen as a good bargain, is it envisaged that the NTMA will be able to purchase carbon units in advance in order to stock up on them?

Yes, that is the very point. It could do so, particularly where it would be advantageous. It would, however, be subject to directions from the Minister. For example, units are currently on sale arising from the collapse of economies such as Belarus. I take the view that one would not want to become involved in that type of trading, and I think the Dáil would agree. The right exists to give directions to the NTMA.

The short answer to the Deputy's question is this provision would allow the NTMA to make purchases in the market where it is advantageous to do so. The same mechanism has already been used for the two tranches of €20 million which we purchased with the permission of the Dáil. The first €20 million came from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the second €20 million was from the World Bank. The mechanism used for both tranches was appropriate and properly focused.

How will the Minister square that with the objective to reduce carbon? I acknowledge that the NTMA is a superb operation. The Minister estimates that 3.6 million tonnes are needed per annum but if the NTMA spots a bargain on the carbon market and splurges on purchasing 30 million tonnes in order to stock up, how will he persuade everybody to reduce carbon emissions?

Deputy Gilmore is asking what would happen if the NTMA bought a big poke of cheap carbon. The Government rather than the NTMA would make the decision in that regard. If the NTMA purchased carbon beyond our needs it is possible to carry it forward or sell it on as it is a traded commodity. Having said that, it is not the purpose nor the intention of the Bill to allow the NTMA to do so.

What does the Bill allow in that regard? The amendment proposes to allow for the purchase of carbon which we need for existing agreements, but to allow it for future agreements would justify the purchase of any amount of carbon. We can stock up on carbon in anticipation of needing Kyoto units to buy out future agreements. That may represent prudent investment in carbon on the part of the NTMA, but how does the Minister square it with the high-minded policy objectives he and his colleagues keep telling us about for the reduction of carbon? If the State has stocked up on Kyoto units and carbon credits it will be very difficult to tell any interest in the Irish economy that it must wear a tighter shoe to reduce carbon emissions.

That would not apply to the ETS because it is outside that scheme.

This is outside ETS but so are agriculture and aviation, as well as many other areas.

That is the case for the moment, though there is a question mark over whether they will remain so. The Government's first control mechanism will be to control the flow of funds available for use by the NTMA. It can also direct that enough credits have been purchased so that there is no need to purchase more. General ministerial guidelines are provided for in the Bill, which I am surprised to learn the Deputy has difficulties with, given his later amendments proposing to prevent them. I would rather give power to the Minister of the day to direct the NTMA to cease.

The purpose is not to allow the NTMA to become involved in speculative buying and selling of credits. As the Deputy said, the NTMA has handled funds very well.

I will respond to a couple of earlier issues. The Minister made much of the comments of various international commentators on the issue. I will read a short extract into the record from Sir Nicholas Stern's review of the economics of climate change. He states:

The scientific evidence that climate change is a serious and urgent issue is now compelling. It warrants strong action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions around the world to reduce the risk of very damaging and potentially irreversible impacts on ecosystems, societies and economies. With good policies the costs of action need not be prohibitive and would be much smaller than the damage averted.

Reversing the trend to higher global temperatures requires an urgent world-wide shift towards a low-carbon economy. Delay makes the problem much more difficult and action to deal with it much more costly.

If economics is used to design cost-effective policies, then taking action to tackle climate change will enable societies' potential for well-being to increase much faster in the long run than without action; we can be ‘green' and grow. Indeed, if we are not ‘green', we will eventually undermine growth, however measured.

He goes on to discuss what needs to be done in the short and longer term. The difficulty I have is that, according to the graphs the Minister used, this provision seems to allow an open-ended commitment in which the purchase of credits will continue at an even rate in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and beyond.

On page 321, Sir Nicholas Stern goes on to state:

The key policy objectives for tackling climate change should include:

— Choosing a policy regime that:

i. in the long term, will stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and establish a long-term quantity goal to limit the risk of catastrophic damage;

ii. in the short term, uses a price signal (tax or trading) to drive emission reductions, thus avoiding unexpectedly high abatement costs by setting short-term quantity constraints that are too rigid.

He emphasises that this should be a short-term measure, yet nowhere within the proposed legislation is there an indication given that this is a short-term issue to get us over the hump and that we will be dramatically reducing emissions thereafter.

In particular, if we look at the graph published with the Minister's press release three or four weeks ago, it looks as if we are signing this standing order, not a blank cheque, that appears to be continuing ever onwards. We will need very dramatic reductions and by continuing with business as usual and an idea that we will be grand if we buy Kyoto credits, we are sending the wrong signals to the market. We would not be tightening the screw to drive innovative technology and move the Irish economy forward.

I am glad the Deputy brought Sir Nicholas Stern into the argument. I have read his report, met him twice and listened very carefully to his precise words at a number of lectures.

In the extract read by the Deputy, Sir Nicholas does not determine what he means by the short, medium or long term. I am conscious that another very eminent British economist stated that in the long term we will all be dead. That was Keynes, not Sir Nicholas Stern.

In the short term the Minister may be out of office but that is another issue.

In the long term the Minister will be out of office as well.

That could happen to any of us. Some of us could even be out of a seat, but we should not go there.

All of us could.

That is the reason we are very humble, like the Minister.

In a very compelling section of his argument, Sir Nicholas Stern indicates that the mix and approach to be adopted is very much a matter of choice for individual countries. The Deputy is reading from the executive summary, I believe.

Not the second extract.

He makes the point a little further on about the existence of a variety of approaches, such as carbon pricing and trading, as well as specific policy mixes. He makes the point that it is appropriate for different EU member states and different states to apply different elements of the mix as is appropriate. The Deputy should remember Sir Nicholas Stern also argues what comes close to a pro-nuclear case in another area but we will not go there because that is not the point the Deputy wished to make.

Sir Nicholas Stern makes a very cogent argument for carbon trading. In the same executive summary the Deputy will see he states that one of the most pressing issues for the world is to expand the European trading system and make it global, involving countries outside Europe. He made the same argument in lectures in Paris and Nairobi. That is the reason progressive countries outside Europe, such as New Zealand, Canada and parts of the United States, have looked at buying into the European system.

It is a good system. We are creating a legislative framework which will facilitate the purchase of carbon credits in a very specific way through the NTMA.

Should we not make a clear distinction between the European trading scheme and the direct purchase of credits on the international market? I believe Sir Nicholas Stern is more favourably disposed towards the trading system rather than the direct purchase.

The Deputy is correct in that they are two separate matters. The principles are the very same. His main beneficial argument on the trading scheme is that it is very focused on specific industries that are heavy emitters. The Deputy and I agree on that.

What did Sir Nicholas Stern think of the corrections made by the Minister to his report?

I would not dream of making any corrections to the report. It stands on its own merits.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 are consequential on amendment No. 13 while amendments Nos. 8 and 13 form a composite proposal. Therefore, amendments Nos. 6, 8, 10 and 13 may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, subsection (4), line 19, to delete "subsection (10)” and substitute

"sections 8 and 9”.

This amendment, along with the related amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 13, is being moved on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel. Amendment No. 13 is a composite with amendment No. 8 and gives further clarity to the Bill and to the agency's direction and guidelines in terms of managing the carbon fund. Amendment No. 6 clarifies the position whereby the management of the carbon fund is delegated to the National Treasury Management Agency. Amendment No. 10 tightens the requirement whereby the NTMA can draw down funds from the central fund. This, in part, addresses one of the concerns expressed by Deputy Gilmore earlier.

Amendment No. 13 raises the interesting prospect of the Minister picking and choosing the credits he wishes to buy. In other areas of interaction with other countries we tend to exercise various criteria, often human rights criteria or criteria relating to the country's record. What direction will the Minister give the agency in this regard? Is he thinking of the cheapest option or the best monitored? Where will he look first? Before Christmas we purchased credits, through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, from a host of countries including Kazakhstan and others. The monitoring of emissions reductions in such places might not be as easy as at Aughinish Alumina or closer to home. Do the criteria to be exercised include the confirmation of reductions and the verification of credits?

Very much so. This must be done ethically as there are some carbon savings on the market the bona fides of which I question. Some economies have collapsed and it is hard to know exactly what they are selling but they are not contributing to anything so clearly dealings in such circumstances would be ruled out. There would be a focus on non-nuclear countries as a developing country cannot be presented with the nuclear option as a solution.

The Deputy's question on measured results raises a core issue and the answer to his question is yes. This is why we favour using the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD, where there is a track record. I was examining the list of clean development mechanisms, CDMs, that have gone through so far and I understand a former employee of the Irish public service is in charge of CDMs in the World Bank. The CDMs are very positive and the one relating to solar panels that I mentioned earlier will be liberating in its effect. A small hydro project is progressing in Bhutan, where there is a huge amount of water energy that has never been harnessed, and there has been a tangible, positive response. A low cost housing energy upgrade project in Cape Town will try to help people use renewable energy. There is a hydroelectric project in Honduras and there is no need to burn hydrocarbons to produce energy there as there is a great deal of unused hydro-energy. The focus will be on such ethical, real and cost-effective areas. Those would be the directions we would follow.

I take it the Minister would be able to exercise his discretion in circumstances if, for instance, the small hydro projects in Honduras had not gone through a proper system of environmental impact assessment? I wish to highlight a real issue.

That is a fair question. The Deputy understands the way the mechanism works. Funds are provided through the World Bank or the EBRD, to give only two examples. Kofi Annan suggested in his call from Nairobi that an alternative mechanism would be created there. I am not sure what he has in mind but it would have to be examined in due course. Obviously, we would have to comply. One would expect that any mechanism, which would be supported by the World Bank or by the EBRD, would be ethical and properly administered. The Deputy has raised an interesting and important point. There will be a challenge in the monitoring of the quality of the investments.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 9 is related to amendment No. 7 and, therefore, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, subsection (5), line 23, after "may" to insert "with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann"

I made the argument on these two amendments earlier. It is about whether the Dáil gives approval for expenditure before or after the event. I believe it should be given before the event. I appreciate what the Minister said, namely, that the NTMA will try to get the best bargain for carbon it can, but it needs to do that within at least an Estimate provided by the Oireachtas rather than in the open-ended way proposed. I rest my case.

The Deputy touched on whether this provision is constitutional. It does not bypass the constitutional arrangements. As I sought to illustrate, although I have not done so to the entire satisfaction of the Deputy, the funding which goes through the mechanism will obviously come through a departmental Vote and will be part and parcel of the—

That will be after the event. The Voting arrangement—

The Deputy and I know that the Estimates are fairly tightly constrained in any Department and the opportunity for the NTMA to go daft and burst the budget—

I am not concerned about the NTMA, I have great confidence in it. I am concerned about the Minister.

I note that the Deputy confidently anticipates my being here for another ten years to come.

This provision gives the Minister the power to call the shots on the purchase. It stands on its head the constitutional arrangements for financial accountability and the right of the House to Vote through moneys. Voting after the purchase is made—

I apologise for cutting across the Deputy but I made the point earlier that there are precedents for this. It is not unprecedented.

The Central Fund was never intended for this purpose, but that is probably an argument for another day.

That is an interesting observation because the Department of Finance was strongly of the view that the Central Fund was an appropriate mechanism. The Central Fund is used for a wide variety of expenditures, which do not arise directly under a specific departmental headings. The obvious one, with which we are all familiar, is election expenditure, which comes from the Central Fund. While this is an interesting debating point, if the Department of Finance is of the view that the Central Fund is the appropriate mechanism for such funding, it seems there are good and cogent reasons it should come through that mechanism.

Although the oversight of the issue of the purchase of carbon lies with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it cuts across the panoply of public policies. It seems the Central Fund is as good a way as any of doing it.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is also of the view that it is an appropriate way of doing it. I bow to his expertise on where it is appropriate to use this mechanism. The Deputy is right in highlighting that it is an accounting issue. It raises accounting issues within the context of public finances. However, if the Department of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor General believe the Central Fund is the appropriate mechanism to use, they are probably right and I am confident they are right.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (10).

As I explained, this is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, subsection (1), line 7, after "section 2,” to insert “with the approval of Dáil Éireann”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 8, to delete "The function" and substitute "Subject to sections 8 and 9, the function”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 42 and 43, to delete all words from and including "the" where it secondly occurs in line 42 down to and including "year" in line 43 and substitute the following:

"the performance during the year concerned of the functions delegated to it under this Act,".

The Parliamentary Counsel has advised that I make this amendment and I am satisfied that it is necessary. Basically, it is a matter of grammar.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 6, lines 25 to 28, to delete subsection (2).

Subsection (2) states that when performing duties under this section, the chief executive of the agency, the NTMA, 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. I can understand why the Government might not want the chief executive of the NTMA issuing press statements commenting on Government policy, and I have no difficulty with that. However, this subsection goes a little over the top. Under it, the Minister can instruct the NTMA to buy carbon but if the chief executive questions whether this is wise because, for example, the price is very high, he or she is effectively prevented from doing so. He or she cannot question or express an opinion on it. I accept that a Government that is in power for too long tends to wish to censor people all over the place, but this goes beyond what is required.

Perhaps it should state that the chief executive cannot publicly express an opinion. However, if the chief executive of the NTMA wishes to put a concern or observation on record, he or she should be entitled to do so. This provision is beyond what is required.

The Deputy probably overheard me say it smacks of a sense of hubris. When I read the Bill I thought it strange and wondered if it was a new type of provision. It is not. It is the language that appears in the National Development Finance Agency Act 2002. The Deputy should check the context in which the reference at subsection (2) occurs. Under section 7 the chief executive of the agency shall give evidence, with regard to the functions performed by the agency under the Act, whenever required by the Committee of Public Accounts, and it occurs in that context. It is not prohibiting the chief executive from giving advice. The provision is a direct copy from the National Development Finance Agency Act 2002.

Does it only refer to when the chief executive is before the Committee of Public Accounts?

That is correct.

If the chief executive has given advice or questioned, in direct communication with the Minister, a direction given by the Minister and is asked about it by Committee of Public Accounts, does it mean he or she must deny it? It could not be done as it would be putting the chief executive of the NTMA in an impossible situation.

The Deputy should read the earlier section 6, which deals with the issue of giving advice by the NTMA chief executive. It gave me some cause for thought but it is in previous legislation.

It is something that needs to be re-examined. I find it a little over the top.

I will revert to the Deputy about this because he has raised the very points that I considered myself.

Great minds think alike.

The Deputy had better not continue with it. I will re-examine the Deputy's amendment between now and Report Stage.

I will withdraw it on that basis.

In considering it, I will be advised by the Department of Finance and by the Parliamentary Counsel as to its value.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

8.—The Minister may, following consultation with the Minister for Finance, give directions or guidelines to the Agency in relation to the performance by it of the functions delegated or granted to it under this Act. The Agency shall comply with any such directions and perform those functions in accordance with any such guidelines.".

As I have already mentioned, amendment No. 13 gives further clarity to the Bill and the direction or guidelines to the agency in carrying out its functions of managing the carbon fund. This was the point that Deputy Cuffe raised. He was wondering what type of advice and guidance the Minister will be giving. This amendment makes it clearer that the Minister has those powers.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

9.—(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.".

It is easy to become stuck in the detail of a Bill such as this and not look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that, essentially, we are purchasing and funding our way out of the issue of tackling climate change. I am not saying the Minister is doing nothing about the matter. Indeed, during his several years in office and the Government's five years in power—

Two years for me.

—a lot of good work has been done in many ways. However, a greater sense of urgency is needed and more dramatic steps are required to tackle climate change, not just abroad but also here in Ireland. To that end, earlier this year we proposed legislation that was sadly voted down in the Dáil by the Government. In essence we were saying that we need to set high targets and keep to them. If we are going in the wrong direction we should make the necessary corrections.

The analogy of keeping a super-tanker on course is often used to illustrate the question of altering a Government's direction. While we must keep the ship on course, we need to set the right course. If the vessel is diverging from that course we need to get it back on track quickly. To that end, my amendment proposes that Ireland should be leading, although I do not believe we are. We have had a great few years of economic success but we should match those with environmental success. We should provide a lead in this respect because it will provide jobs and other economic gains in future. With that in mind, I am proposing that we should take the lead in reducing emissions.

I am also proposing that we should set a strong target. We can argue whether it will be 20% or 30% by 2020, but we should be aiming for 30%. Given the pace of change in this debate over the past six or 12 months, the higher we set our sights the better. We need to set those sights not only on 2020 but also on 2050, as the EU Council of Environment Ministers has suggested. We need to set such a target to maintain the planet at a less than 2° increase in temperature. This should be enshrined in this Bill.

I agree with much of what Deputy Cuffe said. The idea of keeping the planet within the plus 2° is self-evidently sensible. I also agree with him that 30% must be the target to achieve that. The European Union has decided to unilaterally impose a 20% target on itself, that is in the evident of other OECD countries not agreeing to come along with the 30% figure.

It would be very unwise to try to forecast what other countries will do in the future and then enshrine it in Irish law. To do that would be to create real difficulties for ourselves. The European Union is committed to transforming Europe into a highly efficient and low greenhouse gas emitting economy. That is very much part of not only the climate change strategy, but of the Lisbon strategy. I strongly believe there is a real economic advantage in this regard. We should perhaps spend a bit more time talking about this in the Dáil and elsewhere. Rather than argue, which we frequently do, across the Chamber on fairly arid points, we should look for areas in which this country can specialise. For example, wave and tidal energy are areas at which we should look.

I do not question the sincerity or the logic of Europe and the world heading in the direction outlined by Deputy Cuffe. However, this would be to impose targets on ourselves which would, effectively, fetter our future development. It is important Europe gives leadership. Ireland is part of, and will support, that leadership, as we have shown. I have been a very strong advocate of the 30% figure within the Environment Council, and of the 20% figure and have unilaterally accepted it. However, we cannot go beyond where Europe is going.

In this context, the EU is willing to commit to reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions by 30% of 1990 levels. That commitment from the European Union comes with two provisos — first, that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and, second, that economically more advanced developing countries adequately contribute according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.

I do not agree with the 2050 approach to introduce national legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% to 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050. I see that as trying to put into legislation something which is extraordinarily ambitious. There is no reason we should not aim to be ambitious and there are economic advantages to so being. However, to write that into legislation would be wrong and we would rue the day we did so. It would be used to our disadvantage, particularly if we were to do so unilaterally.

I do not disagree with the idea of showing leadership, stepping up to the plate and fulfilling one's moral responsibility. However, we must keep this issue in context. Ireland accounts for one sixth of 1% of global emissions. If we were to close the entire economy down, we would save approximately two minutes and 50 seconds of emissions. That is not to say we should not play our part but we should not fetter ourselves in a legislative way, as proposed by Deputy Cuffe, which would undoubtedly be used to our disadvantage.

As I said, I do not disagree with Europe and the developed world moving in this direction. Hopefully, the developed world will move in this direction and we will be part of that but it would not be wise or prudent to move in the direction suggested by the Deputy in these amendments, regardless of my agreeing with the points of principle.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.

Níl

  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Roche, Dick.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

9.—(1) The Minister will report within one year of this Act being enacted to the Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the success or otherwise in achieving this desired annual reduction and set out the policy measures that will be implemented to ensure that any shortfall in achieving the necessary annual reduction is not carried forward indefinitely to be dealt with in future years.

(2) The Minister shall thereafter report annually to both Houses of the Oireachtas on measures taken to achieve the targets and such report shall include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions expected as a result of such measures.".

This amendment augments the proposal in amendment No. 14. It makes sense that the Minister should make an annual report to the House setting out whether progress has been made and what changes, if any, will be made to policy. This would be an important provision, given that the most recent figures available indicate that we are moving in the wrong direction at a pace. For example, the transport sector has recorded a 7% increase in emissions against an overall increase in emissions of 2%.

I accept that monthly and yearly variations occur and perhaps we should consider increasing the periods under examination to three or four years. Nevertheless, it is reasonably easy to calculate how many tankers arrived in Ireland, how many left and precisely how much energy was used. As such, the annual figures give us a fairly good idea about our progress. It would make sense for the Minister to report to the Dáil each year on whether we are making progress and what proposals he may have to change policy. This is the purpose of the amendment.

I support the principle underpinning the amendment as it would ensure the Oireachtas is informed of progress. If a full debate were required by law each year, Members would not need to table motions calling for a debate. It would also allow the Opposition to put ideas and views to the Government, facilitate a full debate of the relevant issues and compel the Government to place on record the progress, if any, made in this area. The Government, irrespective of which party is in power, would not be able to get off the hook. This matter is too serious to be left to the whims of Government.

I agree with the principle that it is a good idea to have debates and a precedent has been established in this regard. An annual report on the national development programme is presented to the Dáil, thus providing an opportunity for Members to have a debate on the matter. I will publish the climate change strategy document early next month and will consider writing in an appropriate reference to make such a change, following the NDP precedent.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

9.—The phasing out of the purchasing of carbon credits will occur no later than five years following the enactment of this Act.".

While we can differ in our interpretation of what is meant by the words "long-term" and "short-term", the purchase of carbon credits should not be a long-term strategy as it does not make good economic or environmental sense. We should insert a sunset clause in the legislation. Five years is the correct approach to adopt.

I am disturbed and perturbed by the Minister's figures which appear to indicate that Ireland will continue purchasing carbon credits until 2012 and, probably, beyond. Perhaps this graph will be superseded by the Government's new climate change targets document. As I have yet to see it, I do not know what goodies the Minister has in store for us. Looking at the previous climate change strategy from 2000 or 2001, we did not achieve much of what it contained. Once we set up this standing order from Irish taxpayers to the international markets, it is important that we should include a sunset clause. We should call a halt to it in five years, if not before.

In effect, Deputy Cuffe has indicated March 2012 as the cut-off date. That is not practicable because the emission inventories for 2012 will not be established until the following year. For that reason, parties are allowed to acquire Kyoto units up until 2013. What Deputy Cuffe has proposed is not workable.

The proposed amendment would also eliminate an important provision in Ireland's case which would also undermine compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. We need to factor into the debate that the benefits of the clean development mechanism, which allows states that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol to support the developing world, will not disappear in March 2012. For a whole variety of reasons I do not consider the amendment to be practicable.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 3, lines 10 to 13, to delete all words from and including "1992" in line 10 down to and including "CONVENTION" in lines 12 and 13 and substitute the following:

"UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE DONE AT NEW YORK ON 9TH MAY 1992 AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION DONE AT KYOTO ON 11TH DECEMBER 1997".

I have already indicated I am willing to accept this amendment. I agree with the change to the Title.

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting.

Bill reported with amendments.
Top
Share