I wish to address this issue in the context of the section on environmental taxes to which the Minister for Finance referred. I would have thought that two years or more after the Kyoto Summit this Government would have brought forward firm proposals for the introduction of green taxes and for a shift from personal taxation and taxation on employment to environmental taxation. Instead what we have is a reference to the matter being raised by the Minister for Finance with the social partners in the context of Partnership 2000, quite a remarkable position for the Government to take.
I find it difficult to believe that the Government, which has responsibility for taxation and fiscal matters, is somehow going to raise, by way of negotiation with the social partners, its position on environmental taxes, given that two years ago, by way of international agreement at Kyoto, it made certain commitments which have not been met.
Since the Kyoto Summit, this country, which committed itself to targets that allowed for an increase in the level of emissions agreed at that summit, has failed to meet those targets. We have fallen well behind the commitments we made at Kyoto. In addition, we are facing an embarrassing situation in view of the fact that the European Commission is taking the Government to court over its failure to deal with air pollution, the quality of water and other environmental problems.
Given that this budget has been introduced at a time when the Government has considerable resources available to it, has there ever been a better opportunity to shift from personal taxation to green taxation? The case in favour of such a move was eloquently made last March by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I quote:
My own view is that once-off policy choices, necessary to meet the immediate target will not be sufficient to prepare us for the ongoing challenge . I am firmly of the view that we should utilise the fiscal system to assist meeting environmental objectives and securing more sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
. the use of economic instruments like taxation or emissions trading can make more apparent the true cost of resource use or of pollution. Equally, these can provide an effective incentive, both to potential polluters and to consumers, to change their behaviour and maximise the efficiency of their energy or resource use.
The Minister made these comments in a speech to the ESB. Clearly he did not make the same speech to his Cabinet colleagues or, if he did, they did not pay him any heed.
There is nothing in the budget which reflects any move on the part of the Government to address, by way of fiscal measures, the commitments this country made at Kyoto. The only provision made in the budget in this regard is the reduction in excise duty on kerosene. I have no doubt this will be welcomed by householders who are obliged to pay for heating oil. However, there remains the question of energy efficiency. If the excise duty on kerosene is reduced in this way, we will move away from the targets that have been set. Such an action also runs contrary to the high-brow comments made by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and other Government spokespersons in relation to energy efficiency, reducing emissions and honouring the commitments entered into at Kyoto.
