Vol. 611 No. 1
3 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans for the future funding of local government; when the Indecon report on local government finance will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36986/05]
The new arrangements for financing local government, based around the local government fund which the Government introduced in 1999 have had a major positive effect on the finances of local authorities. The fund provides a buoyant and dedicated source of funding for local authorities to supplement the income they derive from other specific Government grants and from local sources such as commercial rates and charges for services.
A measure of the success of the new arrangements can be gauged from the general purpose grant allocations from the fund in 2005, which amount to some €817 million. These allocations are significantly greater than the equivalent figure in 1995 which was €240 million and the 1997 amount of €339 million. The 2005 allocation represents an increase of 8.7% over 2004 and an increase of 140% over 1997 allocations. In the case of the Deputy's constituency, for example, the allocations for Galway County Council have increased from €9.9 million in 1994 to €13 million in 1997 and to €32.6 million in 2005. This is an increase of almost 330% over the figure in 1994 when the Deputy opposite had more influence with the Minister of the day. I have therefore been kinder to Galway than he was.
The level of grant aid for non-national roads, which since 1999 receive funding from the local government fund, has also increased very significantly over recent years with 2005 allocations totalling €495 million compared to €139 million in 1994 and €225 million in 1997.
The recently published Abridged Estimates Volume provides for an Exchequer contribution to the fund of €518.575 million in 2006 which is a 6% increase over 2005 levels. Taken together with motor tax buoyancy, I am confident the general purpose grants which I will shortly notify to local authorities for 2006 will again make a significant contribution to meeting the increased costs of local authorities in the year ahead.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This will enable them to provide a reasonable level of services without the need for any undue increases in commercial rates, fees and other charges.
Notwithstanding the success of the changes introduced in 1999, my predecessor commissioned a review of the funding of local government in light of developments in the economy and the evolving challenges facing the sector into the future. The main elements of the review, undertaken by Indecon International Economic Consultants in association with the Institute of Local Government Studies, were to project the income and expenditure of local authorities over the short and medium term, evaluate the existing method of funding the sector, examine potential alternative funding systems and identify the scope for efficiencies in the sector.
I received the Indecon report recently, and am currently considering its wide-ranging analysis and recommendations. I intend to bring the report to the attention of my colleagues in Government within the coming weeks and to publish it very shortly thereafter.
I thank the Minister for the information, most of which I did not seek. Will the Minister concede that this almost mythical report has been in construction for far too long and that he is using the delay as a comfort blanket? Does he agree the absence of the report is being used as an excuse for inaction? Does the Minister also agree that rather than wasting time and waiting for Indecon to come up with the goods, he would be better arguing more forcibly for a better slice of Exchequer funds for his Department, considering Exchequer funds are €1.5 billion more than the Government anticipated? Does the Minister not realise that local authorities are under-funded? Does he realise that a 6% rise in local government funding will not be enough to help councils meet all their commitments? Will the Minister inform the House how much money was collected nationally in development charges in 2004? Does he support the imposition of development charges of up to €7,000, €8,000 and even €10,000, on people trying to build their houses?
"No" is the answer to those three supplementary questions. I do not agree with the Deputy that there has been anything improper or delayed about the publication of the Indecon report. The Deputy's fourth point was whether another report was needed. That is a good question and it could be the subject for a debate.
On the issue of the publication of the Indecon report, lest anybody thinks I am delaying it, I sought what was the precedent and I am following precisely the same arrangements as applied with the KPMG report in 1996, when the rainbow coalition was in Government.
I am interested in the question about local government and development levies because colleagues from Deputy McCormack's party in my county recently very significantly increased the development levies over what they had promised to people before the local elections, but that is a different issue.
The general point about the levies on which the Deputy touched was how much money is collected and how much money is in the kitty. That is a good question. I have already indicated that this year, before the councillors get into their estimates, I expect them to have those figures. There is a suggestion that there is approximately €400 million in levies collected and in accounts in the local authorities around the country. It is my view — I am sure it is Deputy McCormack's view — that whatever that figure, it should be available to councillors before they get into the estimates process. The lack of transparency in this area is not healthy and that is the point Deputy McCormack is making. I agree with him. I have suggested that this year that figure should be available.
A brief question, Deputy McCormack.
From what the Minister stated, he agrees with development charges. I do not know whether we can believe anything the Minister states because he must be a house angel and a——
Deputy, do you have a brief question because we are running out of time?
Does the Minister acknowledge that in November 1992 he told Wicklow County Council that he would oppose the development levies of up to €7,500 in addition to other charges and that during the council the Minister pointed out that if any Minister for Finance attempted to introduce a tax imposition of up to €7,500 on new houses, he would not last long? Those were the Minister's words. Simply, I am asking the Minister——
I ask the Minister to respond briefly.
——does he agree with development charges, or has he made an extraordinary conversion to development charges? If there is €400 million collected by——
Sorry, Deputy McCormack, I would ask you to give way to the Minister. Your colleagues in this House are complaining that their questions are not being reached. There are six minutes for each question. We have already gone over time on this question and I would ask you to allow the Minister a brief response.
I do not bother the Ceann Comhairle too often with questions.
The Chair would like to give the Deputy all the time available——
Fair dues, a Cheann Comhairle. I accept the Chair's rules.
——but his colleagues in this House are complaining about the length of time given to questions.
I would be delighted to hear whether the Minister is still in favour of development charges because he was not in November 2002.
The Deputy obviously knows the answers as well as the questions.
Could the Minister state whether he will introduce property tax?
First, the Deputy should read in depth what I stated.
I read it.
No, he clearly did not.
I did and if I had time, I would quote it all.
If the Deputy knows the answers as well as the questions, it is pointless coming in here asking questions. If he wants to hear the answers, what he should do is let me answer.
The Minister changes his mind so often I do not know what the answer is.
The Deputy should hold on a second, that is ráiméis. Deputy McCormack knows as well as I know that since planning and development was a reality in this country there have been development charges. What I do not agree with is excessive development charges. What I do not agree with is councillors cutting — as Deputy McCormack's colleagues in Wicklow did last year before the local elections——
I am not in Wicklow.
Deputy McCormack has colleagues in the Wicklow council. Before the Fine Gael members on the council went before the people of Wicklow, they made a big brouhaha of reducing the charges and last week they increased them. That is a local issue.
The time for this question has concluded.
That is what the Minister said. He stated he would not support it. That means Fianna Fáil and everybody else.
The answer to Deputy McCormack's question is development charges are part and parcel of all this, and what I do not agree with is the kind of gouging out that has happened, particularly in one-off housing because of the activities of the Deputy's colleagues.
The Minister was caught out again, changing his mind.
4 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of applicants seeking local authority housing in the assessment of housing needs which was carried out earlier in 2005; the number seeking each other form of social housing, including Traveller accommodation, shared ownership scheme, voluntary housing and so on; the number of applicants seeking all forms of social or local authority housing; the changes which have been made in the method of compiling the 2005 assessment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36761/05]
The assessment of housing need is statutorily required to be carried out every three years. The last full assessment was commenced by local authorities in early 2005 on the basis of detailed guidance provided by the Department.
A number of important new elements were introduced for the 2005 assessment. In particular, a computer based system was established to receive and analyse the data; and individual PPS numbers have been collected for all applicants. This will prevent multiple counting of the same applicant in the census of need, without prejudice to the continued right of persons to seek housing in different local authority areas.
Assessments were initiated by local authorities contacting all existing applicants on their waiting lists and making it known locally, usually through the media, that an assessment of housing need was being undertaken. Local authorities were required to contact any health board operating in or adjoining their area. In addition they will have contacted voluntary and non-profit making organisations engaged locally in the provision of housing accommodation and other such bodies.
It is a matter for individual authorities to determine whether persons comply with the statutory requirements to be accepted for inclusion in the assessments under section 9 of the Housing Act 1988 and section 6 of the Housing Act 1998. An authority may, to assist it in arriving at a decision, have regard to reports from health boards and other agencies or authorities. Section 9 provides that persons may be included in an assessment only where they are in need of accommodation, unable to provide it from their own resources and require long-term accommodation from the authority. I expect to publish detailed tables, including a breakdown of categories of need, in respect of all local authorities in the next few weeks.
I did not ask the Minister of State that question at all. He has just told us how the assessment was conducted.
He is the same as the previous Minister.
I want to know what the result is.
He is a Walter Mitty.
I want to know the number of people who were assessed in the assessment of housing need carried out nine months ago. Surely it does not take the Minister of State with his abacus nine months to count the number of people who are on the housing list, especially since he says he now has a computer to assist him doing it.
There are 2,500 on the list in Galway.
The warehouse is full of computers.
Tabling a parliamentary question is a serious matter. We are entitled to get the answers to the questions we table. My question is how many applicants seek local authority housing, how many look for other forms of social housing and what is the gross total? The Minister of State has that information and he is withholding it from the House.
I answered the Deputy's question in the last sentence——
Spit it out.
——when I said I do not, as yet, have the file of the final figures.
I do not believe that. I do not believe that the Minister of State with responsibility for housing does not have the information that was compiled by local authorities.
It is impossible. Perhaps he cannot add them up.
Nine months later the Minister of State tells the House he does not know the figures.
Would the Deputy like a reply?
Yes, I would. Perhaps the Minister of State will give the House the numbers.
I am sorry the Deputy does not believe me, but I am telling the truth.
I do not believe the Minister of State.
I am telling the truth. I am sorry for his trouble, but the situation is that there is a good deal of collating and cross checking of figures.
The Minister of State should stop that old guff and give the House the figures.
The situation is that there were many discrepancies and different interpretations among local authorities and the final data have not, as yet, been presented to me.
This is an insulting answer to Dáil Éireann. This is a matter of simple addition. Any of the children in the Visitors Gallery would have done it long ago. Nine months ago the local authorities sent data on the numbers of people applying for housing to the Minister of State's Department.
He cannot add them up.
There are only 40 housing authorities or thereabouts. It is not a difficult sum. What is the total number of applicants? The Minister of State should not take us for fools. He has that information and he is withholding it from the House. Give the House the information. I have asked the Minister of State for the number of applicants for local authority and other forms of social housing and the gross total. He should spit it out and tell the House what he knows.
I know what the Deputy has asked and I would like to facilitate him and give an accurate figure, but I cannot. While the assessments started last spring, it was September before some of the first figures were received from local authorities. Much work has been done since then with very detailed cross checking to ensure consistency of approach. That is one of the matters we are trying to achieve. At this stage we are fairly close to the final figure and I hope to have it out to the Deputy within the next few weeks.
The Minister of State is incompetent and useless. Not only can he not manage and provide housing for the people on the housing list, he cannot even count the number of applicants.
I know the Deputy has been looking into his crystal ball and coming up with figures such as 60,000, and I do not know where he got that.
These are the figures.
The Minister of State, without interruption.
What about the figures?
I do not have them. It is a case of doing it accurately. We are getting a computer based system which will improve things in the future.
We found many people who were on more than one local authority. The previous figures may have had much duplication and so on. While many new applicants have gone on the list, one compensates the other. It might not be at the level that you were forecasting, but I cannot give you the final figure. It will not be at 60,000.
You are doctoring the figures.
We are cross-checking the figures for accuracy. I reject that implication. I do not know why I should take more insults from you. I have given you an accurate answer based——
Both the Minister of State and the Deputy must address the Chair.
On a point of order, this Minister of State told us a few minutes ago that he did know the figure. He has now just told us that it will not be 60,000. If he is confident about what it will not be, then he knows what it is but will not tell us.
5 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has satisfied himself that manufacturers or distributors are making an adequate financial contribution to the recycling of consumer packaging, in view of the fact that domestic waste charges continue to rise. [36759/05]
Ireland has enjoyed considerable success in recent years in meeting targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Data from the Environmental Protection Agency show that we met the 25% target for 2001 set under the packaging waste directive and that we are on course to meet the 50% recovery target for 2005. The comparable figure for 1998 was approximately 14%. The practical implementation of the packaging directive in Ireland is organised mainly through a collective industry-based compliance scheme operated by Repak Limited, which is working successfully. Under this scheme, Repak subsidises the collection and recycling of both commercial and domestic packaging waste. There has also been a significant acceleration in our recycling performance in other waste streams, such as electrical and electronic equipment, construction and demolition waste. This is being made possible by the rolling out of the necessary infrastructure in terms of recycling facilities. In recent years we have doubled the number of bring banks and civic amenity sites.
Building on our success in the area of packaging waste recycling, I established the national strategy group on packaging waste recycling in October 2004, involving the key public and private stakeholders such as Repak, IBEC, producers, waste collectors, reprocessors, local authorities and my Department. The group is mandated to develop a strategy for achieving the 2011 targets under an amended packaging waste directive, which will require an overall recovery rate of 60%.
I am aware that the level of subsidy for waste collection services has been raised as an issue by certain local authorities in the context of the revision of their waste management plans. The strategy group is the appropriate forum in which to find consensus between all of the stakeholders on the best way to address all of the issues, including the appropriate levels of financial support from producers for the recovery and recycling activities of the local authorities. The partnership approach is the appropriate way to make further progress in this area.
The Minister seems to claim that everything is fine. It reminds me of Saddam Hussein claiming to be still the president of Iraq. Ireland is at the bottom of the league when compared with other countries in Europe. One need look no further than the European Environment Agency's report which was launched today. The report suggests that of the 32 countries surveyed, Ireland gets the D minus in the environment league.
At the moment, manufactures and distributors contribute to recycling through Repak, which recycles packaging waste. However, Repak isonly paying for the crumbs of recycling. In Dún Laoghaire, householders that get——
Does the Deputy have a question?
I am leading up to it, if I could be so bold. In Dún Laoghaire, householders now have the green bin, but they are paying for the privilege. If they want the green bin, they pay €100 per annum for it. The cost of recycling the content of these bins is €6 million per annum, yet Repak only pays €250,000. Not everything in the green bin is recyclable, but surely Repak or the manufacturers and distributors should make a far greater contribution to recycling——
Has the Deputy a question?
I was in the middle of the question.
The Deputy has gone over his allotted time.
I will be brief. Surely the householders should not pay the vast bulk of the financial contribution to recycling. Can we ask Repak to pay more? If Repak is not prepared to pay more, can the manufacturers and distributors pay their fair share of the recycling burden?
Between 2000 and 2005, Repak spent €66 million on direct recycling costs. In that period, Ireland has consistently achieved the EU packaging waste recycling targets. The Deputy was very selective in his reference to the EU and to the EPA. If I was sitting over there, I would probably be equally selective, so I will not fault him for that. Repak expenditure on direct recycling activity has amounted to approximately €12.4 million. From time to time it is necessary to review the balance between the different parties in the amounts they recycle. This has worked very well as a partnership arrangement and it will be examined by the strategy group. We have seen success out of partnership arrangements elsewhere. I referred to the electrical and electronic waste and the initial figures for these are quite astonishing. When I get final figures, I will make them available to the House.
We are making good progress in this area. The partnership approach is working and the specific point raised by the Deputy should be discussed by the strategy group.
If the mathematics are done on this, it is apparent that the householder is paying €80 to €100 per annum and that Repak pays around 5% of that. That seems like a disproportionate balance in favour of the manufacturing industries. It is very difficult for householders to deal with the amount of waste but they have little choice in it. Can the Minister look at this as a matter of urgency? Can he look at the significant increases in waste charges to private households? Dublin City Council waste charges just went up by 10% last night and something similar could happen at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Can the Minister come up with some suggestions on this issue?
A total of 482,000 tonnes were handled by packaging waste over the period mentioned. The Deputy is making a very interesting point. When we looked at the electric waste directive, we adopted a different approach by using visible fees. The issue raised by the Deputy will have to be discussed by the strategy group.
6 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he intends to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair and his Ministers concerning the future of the British nuclear industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36987/05]
Deputy O'Dowd is to be complimented because he is certainly on the ball. The Prime Minister has just recently made another speech on this issue.
We are not hanging out of the rafters looking at it.
The UK White Paper on Energy in 2003 contained no proposals for new nuclear capacity but the option was not ruled out. It was stated that new nuclear plant might be necessary in the future to meet UK carbon commitments related to climate change. The paper envisaged full public consultation before making any decision. However, earlier today, Prime Minister Blair announced a review of the UK's progress against the medium and long-term energy White Paper goals. This will specifically address the issue of new nuclear plant in the context of an updated energy policy statement to be published in the summer of 2006. The UK energy minister will undertake extensive public and stakeholder consultation as part of this review and Ireland will engage fully in this process. Improved co-operative arrangements between the UK and Ireland on nuclear issues will be important in this regard.
Ireland remains firmly opposed to the nuclear industry on the grounds of the many risks it poses to human health, the environment and the economy, as well as risks associated with waste and transport. Environmental consequences have arisen for Ireland from historical and ongoing discharges to the sea from Sellafield and the potential risk for a serious accident or incident at nuclear plants including Sellafield. Any proposals by the UK to develop new nuclear capacity must be addressed in this context. At my recent meeting in London with the UK Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Alan Johnson MP, I restated this position on Ireland's nuclear safety. I did so again last week when I met the chairman and the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in Dublin, stressing to them that the safe and speedy decommissioning of existing sites is the only way forward.
I reject the argument that nuclear energy, as a carbon-free and plentiful source of energy, can provide a solution to problems of climate change and energy supply. That is a fundamentally weak analysis. The reality is that the nuclear industry carries with it serious environmental and safety risks and the costs in both economic and environmental terms are unsustainable. The Government will continue to represent this view to the United Kingdom at every available opportunity, including at relevant public consultation processes which may arise from any proposals for new building.
When the Minister last returned from the United Kingdom, the breaking news service in The Irish Times quoted him as stating that following his visit, Sellafield was to close. Suddenly, that disappeared from the news media. What kind of operation does the Minister run if he is unable to clarify exactly what he was doing? If that is what the Minister said, the media were misled by him. Today, the British Prime Minister has effectively launched——
Powerful as I am, I cannot control headlines in The Irish Times.
The Minister changes his mind so often that he does not know where he stands.
There is a conspiracy of silence within his Department——
Deputy McCormack is beginning to sound like a broken record or a corncrake.
There is a conspiracy of silence within the Minister's Department regarding the issue of the relationship between Britain and Ireland in respect of Sellafield and nuclear matters. Recently, I made a freedom of information request to his Department on Sellafield and his correspondence with the British Government in this respect. However, as a result of the Cabinet's decision to shut down the Freedom of Information Act, 90 of the 120 items which could have been released to me were refused. The Minister's policy of keeping the public ignorant is unacceptable, wrong and disgraceful.
What will the Minister do about this issue now? What steps will he take today to approach his British counterpart and to make an assault on Downing Street regarding the concerns and fears of the Irish people in respect of ten additional nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom? The plant which the Minister is supposed to have closed — Sellafield — will be obliged to reprocess the consequential waste.
I am grateful that Deputy O'Dowd considers me to be sufficiently powerful to dictate a headline in The Irish Times.
The Minister is not doing his job.
The Minister does something different every week.
As I stated to the Deputy, a review was announced today which will be published in 2006. As I have indicated, if any proposals for rebuilding emerge, there will be consultations with stakeholders. As I have indicated further, Ireland will be active in opposition in that regard. The characterisation of my position in any other way is incorrect. I am sure it was accidental.
Will the Minister publish his correspondence?
As for freedom of information, Deputy O'Dowd's suggestion that I am anything other than interested in it is bizarre, given that I introduced a Freedom of Information Bill in the Seanad while a Member of that House.
The Minister did not.
The Minister closed it down.
The Minister filleted it.
Deputy O'Dowd is aware that the Minister of the day does not intervene in the processing of freedom of information requests and it is untruthful to suggest otherwise. He is also aware that freedom of information decisions are made by a designated officer, that I would not necessarily be familiar with a particular request and that issues of correspondence between Governments tend to be treated in a specific manner.
These are simple e-mails between the Minister and his staff or people working for him. A policy of secrecy and a cloak of silence exist around his activities. Undoubtedly, the Minister's intentions are good, proper and honourable. However, I am unable to acquire any information and the Minister voted within the Cabinet to amend the Freedom of Information Act. A cult of secrecy surrounds the Government's activities. I tabled a question to the Minister and it is not good enough to state that it will be published in 2006, 2007 or 2008. What is the Minister doing about it now? Will he instruct the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to conduct cogent, considered and committed research in this area immediately?
The time has expired.
We may have expired by the time the Minister acts. He should do something today in this regard and should not simply let it happen.
I remind the Deputy that he asked whether I intended to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and his Ministers. I have already met one of his Ministers as well as the decommissioning authority. I am committed to ongoing meetings. As the Deputy is aware, my Department and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are involved in continual contacts. While the suggestion that I should assail the halls of No. 10 Downing Street is colourful and headline grabbing, it is not particularly sensible.
The Minister should get off his butt and do something.
However, the Deputy may be assured——
The Minister should go there and do the business.
——that I will continue to devote my energies to this issue. If the Deputy believes he has ideas as to how No. 10 Downing Street could be assailed, I would be pleased to consult him.
The Minister will change his mind and do something else.
The House corncrake is at it again.
7 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the target which Ireland has set in the national climate change strategy for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012; the reduction achieved to date in 2005; the estimated annual cost to Ireland if greenhouse gas emissions remain at their current level; the target for reduction in greenhouse gases for each year between now and 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36762/05]
The national climate change strategy sets out Ireland's approach to meeting its target for the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol, which is to limit the growth in greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above 1990 levels in the 2008 to 2012 commitment period. It was projected that, in the absence of any measures to address the problem, Ireland's emissions in that period could be some 37% above 1990 levels. The target relates to the average for the Kyoto Protocol commitment period 2008 to 2012 and is not defined on an annual basis.
In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, Ireland's emissions were approximately 25% above the 1990 level. This figure is down from 31% in 2001 and 29% in 2002. This progress is satisfactory but rapid growth in the economy is nonetheless placing an upward pressure on our greenhouse gas emissions and requires us to intensify efforts to bring about the required reductions.
The latest available projections of greenhouse gas emissions for the 2008 to 2012 commitment period suggest that, in the absence of any additional measures, the estimated gap, that is, the distance to the target will be approximately 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The Government is acting to close this gap in three ways. A proportion of the required reduction will be allocated to Irish participants in the EU emissions trading scheme. Following a review of the national climate change strategy, the Government will bring forward further measures to secure reductions across the rest of the economy. The Government will avail of the mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol which allows it to meet its obligations by purchasing credits for carbon reductions elsewhere in the world.
The Government has also signalled its intention to purchase up to 3.7 million allowances for each year of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period. On the basis of an assessed average price of €15 per carbon allowance during the period 2008 to 2012, the total annual cost to the Exchequer would be €55.5 million. The ultimate cost to the Exchequer will depend on the final purchasing requirement and the price of carbon when the credits are purchased. As the figures are projections covering the period from 2008 to 2012, it is impossible to state exactly what the figures will be then.
With regard to the projected cost, is the cost of €55.5 million per year the worst case scenario? The Minister stated that we must close a gap of 8 million tonnes of carbon to meet our Kyoto Protocol target in six years' time. Hence, will we achieve an annual reduction in the order of 1.5 million tonnes of carbon between now and 2012? Will the Minister indicate to the House how that will be achieved?
As for the figure of €55.5 million, it was calculated on the basis of €15 per unit for the period from 2008 to 2012.
Is that the worst case scenario?
While I know that the Deputy is comfortable with worst case scenarios, that is——
I have simply asked a question.
It is on the basis of a figure of €15 per carbon unit in the period specified. As I stated in the final sentence of my reply, the ultimate cost to the Exchequer will depend on the final purchasing requirement and the price of carbon credits during the time when they are calculated.
As for the Deputy's query whether it would be annualised, the answer is "No". As the Deputy is aware, the commitment period extends from 2008 to 2012.
While I am aware that this is a commitment period, its final year is now only six years' away. We have a gap of 8 million tonnes of carbon to close. We have not done very well in the past five years since the climate change strategy was published. The Minister has avoided answering the question on the worst case scenario for the obvious reason that he does not want to admit what I have alleged, just as he did not want to admit it when interviewed on radio.
Is it the case that Ireland will not meet the target of 13% by 2012? Will the Government's way out be to use taxpayers' money to allow the country to continue to pollute? Is this not the picture the Minister is painting?
That is the most extraordinary distortion of the reality. As Deputy Gilmore well knows, under the Kyoto Protocol there are many different ways in which a state party to the protocol can reach its targets.
Including buying its way out of it.
Including buying, that is correct.
With taxpayers' money. How much taxpayers' money will be spent?
When the Government buys anything, it does so using taxpayers' money. If the Deputy had the forbearance to let me finish my sentence, I would inform him that there is a logic to the process, as he knows. One can either go the most economically costly way or, alternatively, buy green credits, from a developing country for example. This process in envisaged and central to the protocol. The Deputy knows this as well as I do and therefore there is no point in his acting as if he were astonished.
Deputy Gilmore also asked me about the worst case scenario — the worst case scenario is the worst case scenario. I have outlined to the Deputy the basis on which the calculations are made.
How will the Minister be able to look his UK counterparts in the eye and lecture them about nuclear energy when this country, under his stewardship, is failing to meet its commitments on carbon reduction under the Kyoto Protocol?
The repetition that this country is failing to meet its targets is patent nonsense given that we are talking about a period from 2008. Time and again, I have outlined to the Deputy, who does not like to hear facts, the reductions from 31% in 2001 and 29% in 2002 to 25% in 2003, the last year for which figures are available. I also said very frankly to him that, as economic——
They are increases. We are 25% over the target level and the rest of Europe is 7% under.
The Deputy is now showing that he has a very flawed grasp of basic numeric accuracy. With all due respect to him——
We have one of the worst records in Europe in regard to carbon emissions.
——25% is not higher than 29% or 31%.
