I welcome the Minister for Transport and his officials and I am delighted they could attend. We heard from the EPA last week that the transport sector is a significant contributor to our greenhouse gas emissions. This committee's purpose is to assist in whatever way it can in tackling the problem. We are trying to focus on the main sectors, including agriculture, transport and local government, to determine what steps can be taken. As the Minister knows, it is a bit like dealing with the Estimates. Unless each Department plays its part in making savings, we will not achieve much. This is the approach we need to take given our level is in excess by nearly 20% of that desired. Any savings in this regard can be of major significance in the fight against climate change. I look forward to the Minister's contribution, which is to be followed by questions.
Energy Policy: Discussion with Minister for Transport.
I thank the Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and commend it on the manner in which it is doing its business. If the transport sector is to meet is emissions targets by 2020, some difficult choices will need to be made.
From my experience of the Marine Institute, I can inform the committee that it is well worth a visit to see its work. I commend the committee on expressing an interest in visiting.
I will summarise some of the current trends in the transport sector and list some of the possible approaches that can be adopted between now and 2020. Between 1990 and 2006, energy consumption by the transport sector increased by 167% and the annual average growth rate was 6.3%, which compares with the overall gross domestic product growth rate of 169% in the same period. There is therefore a very close positive correlation between the two levels. If we are to make progress and counter this trend, there will have to be some decoupling.
Transport's share of total energy use is growing. The picture is similar in respect of greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector, which increased by 165%, from 5.17 million tonnes C02 equivalents in 1990 to 13.72 million tonnes CO2 equivalents in 2006. By 2020, even with the massive investment in Transport 21, based on the latest statistics from the Central Statistics Office, CSO, and on the basis of anticipated population growth of 20%, from 4,240,000 in 2006 to 5,100,000 by 2020, it is estimated that greenhouse gas emissions could grow as much as 265% above 1990 levels. Despite an investment of over €14 billion in public transport infrastructure over the period, it is anticipated that dependency on imported fossil fuels for the transport sector will remain high. We have a particularly high dependency on fossil fuels which we hope to reduce by the substitution of bio-fuels, but the growth in population will offset many of the gains from transport investment and substitution.
An exemplary travel and transport system should contribute to economic prosperity and quality of life without causing significant impacts on the environment. With these factors in balance such a transport system would be considered sustainable into the future. Ireland's current travel and transport trends are not sustainable. Our economic success has contributed to this trend and our population and levels of car ownership are growing. Another factor is the increase in travel distances. The 2006 census shows that the average distance to work is now 15.8 km compared with 7.7 km in 1991.
Several measures are being implemented which will help to mitigate this trend. Under Transport 21, a total of €34 billion will be invested in the transport infrastructure over its ten year life. This will result in a major expansion and upgrade of the national road network and there will be significant investment, with commensurate service level improvements, in the bus and rail systems nationally. Almost half of the overall Transport 21 budget is being allocated to public transport infrastructure.
The high quality network being put in place contributes significantly to supporting our national competitiveness, which the Government must keep in mind at all times, and job creation and the achievement of more balanced regional development. Transport 21 alone, however, will not solve the challenges posed by the anticipated trajectory.
The national climate change strategy also sets out several initiatives, including technology improvements, mineral oil tax relief for bio-fuels, rebalancing of motor taxes and fuel economy labelling, which could save a possible 2.293 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum by 2010. In addition, it is expected that the target of 10% bio-fuels will reduce emissions by 0.878 million tonnes. I have instructed the CIE group to proceed with implementing the agreed actions set out in the Government White Paper on Energy in this regard.
It is anticipated also that demand side management measures will achieve an additional reduction of 0.74 million tonnes by 2020. This may include mobility management measures relating to, for example, a safe route to schools programme and workplace travel plans. I also anticipate greater use of hybrid technology in the public bus fleet and the future implementation of technological options to ensure that the public transport fleet meets its energy efficiency requirements as set out in the proposed energy efficiency action plan and energy services directive targets for the public sector.
The Government moved to rebalance the VRT and motor tax rates in the last budget so that vehicles with lower emissions will attract much lower rates of tax. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, will be reporting progress on the target for the national climate change strategy in his annual carbon budget statement later this year. The use of bio-fuels applies to energy security as well as reduction in emissions. We have set the ambitious target for bio-fuels of 10% for road transport fuel in the expectation that future production of so-called second generation bio-fuels will be more sustainable and create economic benefits for indigenous industry. Such a target provides investor certainty and will accelerate innovation and research and development in next generation fuels.
Notwithstanding this action by Government with the explicit aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, all current advice suggests that Ireland's travel and transport trends will remain unsustainable and that more needs to be done. This is not just a response to the EU goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 by 20% on 1990 levels, it is also a recognition of the fact that we must tackle other sustainable issues such as quality of life and economic competitiveness, which are being damaged by growing congestion.
My vision is that by 2020 there will be a considerable shift to public transport, cycling and walking, significant reduction in congestion, reduction in transport emissions, enhancement of Ireland's competitiveness and significant behavioural change, which ensures that the public chooses more sustainable travel options, where available. I have started to address an element of that vision by commissioning research on a national cycle policy to determine best international practice. In addition, in An Agreed Programme for Government, the Government has committed to establishing a Dublin transport authority, which will have overall responsibility for surface transport in the greater Dublin area to ensure the speedy and efficient delivery of public transport infrastructure and the regulation of fares and service levels for the public.
The authority will have the necessary powers to ensure the delivery of the integrated public transport system envisaged under Transport 21. These powers include, but are not limited to, responsibility for the allocation of Exchequer funds, which will give the authority power to ensure the delivery of priority transport projects and power to contract for services, which will allow the integration of services and infrastructure and will, for example, allow it to ensure that bus services are effectively integrated with the metro on its completion and responsibility to deliver public transport infrastructure projects through existing agencies. Should it consider it more efficient and expeditious to do so it can deliver a project itself. This mirrors the powers of the National Roads Authority which have been successful in respect of public private partnership projects and national road signposting.
The Dublin transport authority will have powers to require a transport agency to deliver, or take a particular action in delivering, a project. Should the transport agency refuse, the Dublin transport authority can step in and take over the projects and all contracts will transfer to the authority. This power, which might be used only in extreme circumstances, ensures that where an agency of the State is not delivering, the authority can ensure the delivery of a project for the benefit of all commuters into and out of the city. It will have power of direction on issues such as ensuring compliance by transport agencies with integrated ticketing, passenger information and fares. That is a sample of what the Dublin transport Bill, to be published soon, will provide.
The issues are more wide-ranging than the challenges in the greater Dublin area and the key task will be to put targets on the vision and set out actions to achieve these targets. The Government agreed with my proposal that a sustainable travel and transport action plan be delivered to show how the vision will be achieved. That plan will be published for public consultation soon. This needs to be an intensive process, given the reach of the plan. We will set up a dedicated website for submissions on www.sustainabletravel.ie with a lo-call number and other support arrangements. My Department will circulate to each member of this committee the issues document, when it is ready. I will be happy to discuss this document in more detail with the committee when it is published in the next couple of weeks.
The establishment of the Dublin transport authority combined with the White Paper on sustainable travel and transport and allied to a €34 billion budget for transport infrastructure up to 2020 should contribute to a much improved scenario for transport related emissions by 2020. As I stated at the outset, issues need to be addressed and hard choices made. I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address the committee this afternoon and I look forward to their input.
Can we expect the Dublin transport authority Bill to be passed by the end of 2008?
I expect the Bill will be published before the end of February. I note what the Chairman said and I would like to have it pass all Stages as quickly as possible because it will take a good deal of organisation to get it up and running. The DTA chairman designate is in place but I would like to see the Bill go through the House, subject to the working of the House, during the first half of the year and make substantial progress by the end of the year in establishing the agency.
Before I begin, let me ask the Minister how many meetings of the Cabinet Sub-committee on Climate Change he has attended?
I have attended all of them.
How many?
There were three so far, generally one each month.
I welcome the Minister. We are all very conscious that transport carbon emissions have been skyrocketing for some time. The figures the Minister gave us are startling. It seems that something major must be done if this rate of growth is to be arrested. The target set in the Government programme is a reduction of 3% per annum. What reduction has been set for transport for 2008? There seems to be a lack of connection between the ambitious targets set in the Government programme and how these play out in different Departments. I was startled to read in a press statement from my colleague Deputy Thomas Broughan — I presume there is some misunderstanding — that the Minister, rather than going for an environmentally friendly car, has chosen an Audi, which is not a hybrid. It seems incredible that a Minister who is responsible for an area of pubic policy that has such a major impact on the future of the planet cannot choose the right car. Will he comment on that?
Last week the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, issued a statement in which he commented on transport policy, stating that we have to switch over from road programmes to public transport programmes that deliver and that we need to get rid of our totally unintelligent system. That seems to be in direct variance to the policy the Minister for Transport outlined here and I would like him to comment on what is clearly a deep divergence of view in the Cabinet.
The briefing material supplied prompts me to raise a number of questions. Fuel tourism was raised, where 10% of petrol and 25% of diesel is bought for use outside the State. That seems to be massaging the figures because it does not appear to take into account that people in the State have bought their fuel outside the State. I know there is a price differential but be that as it may, tourists who come here have bought their fuel elsewhere. I presume those figures are a bit inflated to try to make us look that we are using a little bit less fuel than we are.
The Minister is laying great store by Transport 21. Considerable improvements have been made in terms of the delays experienced in the past in road building. I compliment the fact that improvement have been made in meeting deadlines both in terms of cost and time, and sometimes coming in ahead of time. That seems to apply largely to road programmes. If we are to get away from our unintelligent system, to which Deputy Eamon Ryan referred, we need to concentrate to a much greater degree on public transport. Will the Minister explain why so many public transport projects are now behind schedule, for example the date of the metro north has changed from 2012 to 2013, the timeframe for Tallaght to City West Luas extension goes from 2008 to 2010 and the docklands station, which was proposed for 2008, will now run into 2009. Will he also comment on the linking of the existing Luas lines, the construction timetable for the Cork commuter rail service to Middleton, which has been pushed back to 2009, and the Portlaoise train depot which will come on stream in 2008 instead of 2007? Unless we have a fundamental shift to public transport, we will continue to make a spiralling impact on global warming which cannot be sustained by the planet.
What is happening in terms of the monitoring of improvements in the transport sector? Recently we had a impressive presentation from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA reports each year to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but I wonder who watches the Department of Transport? What monitoring can be done to ensure we are getting on top of what is a very considerable and serious problem in terms of sustainability? We can have reports but unless we have hard scientific evidence based analysis, we will not know whether we are getting on top of this.
The use of biofuels for transport purposes has come under criticism. I understand there are rumblings from the EU Commission that the use of biofuels for transport purposes is not an effective use of biofuels. There are issues about food and fuel. The Minister has set targets for the use of biofuels and will he advise us as to whether these are being reviewed?
I know the Minister is very committed to resolving the issues that are important to our climate change strategy. There are many challenges and he has skirted around the hard decisions that must be made. I look forward to receiving the Issues paper that will be circulated in the next couple of weeks. That will concentrate our minds. The EPA has been before the committee and given substantial warnings about what must be done, sooner rather than later, in the transport area. The figures the Minister has given us are a clear indication of where we are at.
I have two questions for the Minister. Where does he see the transport sector linking into biofuels and what contribution does he expect that will make overall with regard to the 2020 targets? There is an issue of energy security and this committee will be addressing that but there is also the question of food security. I am sure a conflict is looming with the Commission with regard to agriculture and food in relation to the growth of crops in the future. In connection with the balance that must be achieved, is any research being done on that issue within the Department of Transport?
I have never ceased to be amazed at the inadequacy of CIE in terms of taking freight off the roads and putting it on rail. While there are viability aspects in some cases, I do not see any effort being made. Iarnród Éireann should be engaged with the transport sector to remove trucks from the road which do not need to be there and use the rail more efficiently and effectively to bring our product to port. I wonder whether the Minister has any proposals in that regard because I believe that would make a major contribution towards achieving the targets he has to achieve in the context of climate change.
I welcome the Minister to the committee. One of the joys of not holding ministerial office is that one has the time, perhaps, to attend more public lectures than a Minister can. I have attended a great series of lectures sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, mostly held in the Mansion House, Dublin, on the theme of climate change. The recurring theme every fortnight is that climate change is happening, it is an enormously important issue and we need to address it.
While I compliment the Minister on the sustainable transport and travel initiative, I need to echo the note of concern from my colleague the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, by pointing out again that emissions in transport increased dramatically again last year, perhaps by 6%. We still have the difficulty of the vast bulk of capital funding in transport going to roads. Last year, 17% of such funding was spent on public transport with 83% on roads, a dramatic imbalance. While I note the Minister's intention to redress the imbalance in investment in future years, I recall a similar sentiment being expressed at the conclusion of the Dublin Transportation Initiative in 1994.
I am especially concerned about rail freight. We are witnessing the death of rail freight on the Minister's watch. I can only reiterate the concerns that exist. Rail freight tonnage in 2003 was 2,251 million tonnes and in 2006, 1,250 million tonnes, almost halving in just three years. Can we not do something to incentivise rail freight, for example, by getting heavy trucks off the roads or by reducing emissions? I suspect some type of managerial shake-up is needed in Iarnród Éireann to make it happen as I do not believe the determination exists to act. More needs to be done.
There are many great initiatives within Transport 21, but there is no mention of walking and cycling. The slow modes are ignored. I note the Minister's determination to get the safe routes to school expanded countrywide, but it is difficult to do that when this initiative is not mentioned in the main transport policy document.
The national spatial strategy is all very well, but it had the wind taken out of it with decentralisation. Regardless of whether it is Trim, in the Minister's county, or elsewhere around the country, so many people will not have decent public transport available to them if they decentralise. That is reflected in the figures the Minister is giving us today. The amount of emission reduction on spatial planning in the table is possibly the smallest, at 0.083 million tonnes, equivalent to 83,000 tonnes. That is a drop in the ocean for planning.
Does the Minister not agree that we need nothing more than a radical transformation of transportation policy? We need joined up thinking between land use planning and transportation so that people are living in the right places with public transport available to them. Even in the Minister's County Meath there has been an enormous expansion in one-off housing as well as large housing estates, which are not near public transport services. Is a rethink of planning and investment priorities not needed?
Before calling Deputy Calleary, I want to tell the Minister that since this committee was set up we have been listening to people concerning targets and proposals for the future. I believe we are getting rapidly to the stage where direction must be given. We are talking here about rail. CIE, as a State company, is under the control of Government. We must arrive at a stage where people are directed so that no more buses are allowed on our streets unless they are hybrid, or whatever is necessary.
The Minister said he has sanctioned funding for Dublin Bus for the leasing of a prototype double decker bus. Some of us stopped off in Hong Kong on our way to Bali. Taxis and buses there are powered by LPG. If we are serious we have to tell people, where we have control, that they cannot continue as they are and indicate what they must do. Unless we can deal with the organisations under Government control, we will never get the co-operation of the public which will be cynical on seeing no effort being made by CIE or others to do something about carrying goods by rail or expanding operations or seeking funds to extend the rail system.
It was very worrying to listen to the delegation from the EPA which attended the committee last week. If only members of the public could listen to what we were being told. People believe this is some sort of a dream. It is not a dream, but reality. We have to show that we are taking strong action here and now and we are going to direct people to do certain things. Otherwise it will not be done.
It is far easier to send goods by a large truck trundling through the streets and we have to change tunnels to cater for the bigger trucks. That day is gone. We cannot be spending money on things like that just to cater for road transport when there is a rail system that could carry these goods. The Minister will recall from his time in charge of the then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources that we were talking about short sea shipping to take heavy goods off the roads and promoting transport by sea throughout Europe. That type of thinking must be followed up so that we can take all the heavy traffic off our roads.
One only has to go out the gate into Merrion Street and see the congestion of the traffic trundling up through Pearse Street. Somebody made a crazy decision to make a one-way system that does not work and it has never been changed. The amount of fuel, time and effort wasted with cars trundling along is enormous. Every double decker bus coming into the city goes through O'Connell Street. Why do they not stop at the perimeter, and let us have a free service within a two-mile radius, so that people can hop off a commuter bus and onto a circular bus system? If one goes down O'Connell Street, the place is jammed with double decker buses with perhaps two people on them. The 46A bus from my area goes in, up around Parnell Square and comes down O'Connell Street. Who is on the bus? That is the type of activity that is driving people mad. The only way to get action taken is by direction. This frustration will come from all of us. I hope this committee will support any tough decisions taken by the Minister. They will have to be taken and we will explain why to people. Rather than having a chat, the Minister will know at the end of today's meeting that he has our commitment if he is prepared to take tough action and direct people to do things.
With all due respect, may we have some answers from the Minister?
We will in a moment.
I welcome the Minister. He has been ahead of the curve on many of these issues, long before they were fashionable or favourable. I look forward to working with him on this committee.
I would like to comment on his commitments to cycling and walking. We will be arriving at a significant stage in Transport 21 after 2010 when the major interurban routes are out of the way. The rest of us who are not on those routes might then get a chance. That will bring considerable road expenditure around the country to areas that are not well served by road. Will consideration be given to factoring cycle lanes and walking facilities into the design stage of those new routes? Will an incentive be provided to the NRA to do that? Will a penalty be built into its grant if it does not do that as it moves into the design stage? I am sure the Minister is aware of the difficulties of the ESB in trying to get public lighting. Even when the money is allocated from council expenditure, one can wait six months to a year for the ESB to put in a light. There are issues of regulation, deregulation and competition, but people will not walk in dark areas and as long as we have one company controlling public lighting in this country, we will be in the dark when walking.
I endorse the comments of Deputy Hogan and the Chairman on freight and CIE. In a previous existence I had to deal with CIE freight regarding a major customer, who was really put through the hoops by the company when trying to get a freight connection to Ballina. The rates are way over the odds when compared with road transport and similar rail systems around the world. The CIE representatives more or less gave the impression that they did not want the business, even though it is quite substantial. We eventually got there through a lot of hard work on the part of the company. The company had to do all the market research as CIE was extremely reluctant to get involved. There is far more potential on the lines that are not used for rail freight and we should be encouraging that.
As the largest transport company in the country, CIE will play the key role on emissions. Can we look at the subvention given to CIE and start pairing it off with its commitments to emission reduction and to climate change friendly policies? Let us start penalising the company when it is dragging its feet, which is clearly happening. We do not have the transport modes and equipment that exist abroad, while CIE is messing around with bio-fuel trials and other trials for which we see stickers on the backs of buses. It is time we started hitting CIE in its pocket where it hurts. The subvention, which is under the control of the Government, is possibly the best way to start targeting that.
Claims are made that Transport 21 is all about roads and that public transport would be nice. However, we must bear in mind that they are many areas in the country that do not have an appropriate road structure in the 21st century. We do not have the luxury of the DART on demand or every ten minutes, or trains every hour. Until we do that, Transport 21 is the way to put the appropriate infrastructure in place. We must invest in public transport as well, but it is not motorway heaven in every part of the country.
I thank members for the issues they raised. The Chairman made a point about giving direction to companies under State control. Control is probably too strong a word to use for State companies, be they in the transport sector, the electricity sector or anywhere else. The State companies have been given commercial mandates and they tend to act independently. In the energy policy document, we have given specific targets to CIE on the use of bio-fuels and we expect the company to comply with that. To answer Deputy Calleary's point about that, we have memorandums of understanding with CIE which are being developed. When the Dublin transport authority Bill is in place, we will move those memorandums on to a full contract. Targets will be set for customer quality and there also be indicators on energy. If it is Government policy that a State company is to use a certain amount of bio-fuel, then that target must be achieved or the company's subvention will be affected. The bonuses paid to chief executives should also be affected and that is the direction I would like to take.
I take the Chairman's general point that either Government direction or clearly stated Government policy must be tied to performance indicators. It is accepted in the energy policy document that there is a need for leadership from the public sector generally in all of these areas, and a target is to be set for a 30% reduction in energy use in the public sector and 20% elsewhere. I acknowledge what the Chairman said about support from the committee for tough decisions that can be justified. Much dialogue must take place between us on the sustainable transport and travel plan. If we can reach a consensus on that, I would be delighted. There are tough decisions to be made.
Deputy Hogan and others raised a point about bio-fuels. There is constant national and international research on bio-fuels and their use. I spoke about second generation bio-fuels which would not necessarily be taken up from crops, but there is a tension between energy crops and food crops competing for the same land. Teagasc is aware of this, as is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my Department. It is one of those cross-cutting issues that we discuss on this committee.
Deputies Hogan, Cuffe and others raised the question of rail freight. I also find it mystifying why more freight is not carried. I received a briefing note on why this is the case. Iarnród Éireann made an effort to increase its rail freight and it bought new rolling stock, but it appears it was not a success. It would be useful for the committee to explore with the company the reasons it was not a success. However, it is largely to do with the number of movements and lifts in freight. In some respects, that was then and this is now. We are moving towards 2020. Something that might not have been economic or worth the trouble five years ago certainly needs to be reconsidered. That is something I am pursuing and it is specifically referred to in the issues document we will provide to the committee. If the committee holds meetings on the transport and travel action plan, this is an area that might be focused on with the company. There is no easy answer, I am told, but I do not accept there is not a greater role for rail freight in this regard.
With regard to Deputy McManus's question on the Government target of 3% and how much is allocated to the transport sector, the committee is focusing on how we achieve the target and what each sector will contribute to it. In some years, because there is a longer lead-in time, it might be that transport would play a very small part whereas it could play a larger part in other years. However, it is obviously a matter that must be agreed around the table. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be reporting on this as part of his carbon budget. It will take some time to develop a level of sophistication for the annual targets so we are able to allocate to each sector. In the meantime, we have what we have committed to in the climate change strategy and we will do what we can to increase that.
There are swings and roundabouts with regard to fuel tourism but we are operating on the basis of EU rules. The rule is that only fuel purchased in the State is relevant to our figures. The Deputy is undoubtedly correct in saying trucks and cars enter the State carrying a certain amount of fuel but they probably leave with full tanks because of the significant price differential. It may surprise people to know our level of duty and tax on fossil fuels used to be the lowest and is still one of the lowest in the EU. It is attractive to enter the State with a HGV, do a run and fill one's tank with fuel before leaving. While there are various figures for petrol and diesel, overall we estimate it accounts for approximately 17% of our fuel, which does affect our emissions.
The Deputy also asked who watches the Department of Transport. As a Department, the current situation is that we must report to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. Again, the sustainable transport and travel action plan will address the need for ongoing monitoring and how that might operate, and the Government will also require progress reports on a regular basis.
With regard to the statement made some time back by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, I do not disagree with the Minister and there is no divergence of views. We are at a stage where our transport system is not able to achieve the kind of targets we need to achieve. We need to shift the balance to public transport, which we are doing and which is the policy. By 2010 or 2011, the balance will be very much in favour of public transport. Deputy Cuffe made the observation that the vast bulk of money is currently spent on roads, which is true, but given that in 1997 approximately €5 million was being spent on public transport, when one considers the current position, there has been huge change.
I was in the Department of the Environment and Local Government from the late 1990s until 2002. I remember distinctly we had the same problems then with regard to building roads and completing projects that we have now with regard to public transport, although the position with regard to public transport is slightly better. At that time, we did not have the expertise or the size of projects we needed. We are moving from a situation where we were spending €5 million on public transport to one where we are spending €1.3 billion to €1.4 billion. To build up the expertise so as to be able to provide the level of confidence we need is not an overnight development. Iarnród Éireann and other companies such as the RPA have done very well in the circumstances but it is a fairly fast learning curve for everyone. This is why public transport will play second fiddle to road transport in some respects in the early stages of Transport 21.
Coming from an area that is not blessed with public transport or roads, Deputy Calleary will know we have a long way to go. I do not accept the view that we should decide not to spend money on roads because this would disadvantage huge tracts of the country. When I hear people talking about the Netherlands and various other parts of the world where 90% of the population lives in cities and one can provide public transport, and comparing this to Ireland's situation and how poorly we have performed, I do not accept the comparison. While we have a problem and we need to provide more public transport, we will never be in a position to send a train or even a bus to every village. We need to change our thinking and we need that radical transformation to which reference was made.
The other area to which Deputy Cuffe referred was that of land use and transportation, an issue to which I am committed. We now have the framework in place in the Planning and Development Acts. We need in the Dublin transport authority Bill to tie this in more tightly than has been done in the past, which is part of what I have been trying to achieve in finalising the Bill.
Deputies Cuffe and Calleary raised the issue of cycling and walking. One of the statistics in the issues document is that if we can increase the rate of cycling from 2% to 10%, we will be able to move as many people by bicycle as by all of the measures in the public transport section of Transport 21. When one considers a city such as Copenhagen, which has 30% bicycle usage--
Sorry for interrupting. Did the Minister notice that taxis in Copenhagen have provision for a number of bicycles at the rear of the taxi? If a person cycles to work and wants to take a taxi home, it can carry the bicycle. Many people would not want to cycle home in the evenings. These are simple measures which, if introduced here, could make a hell of a difference. This is the type of example where I ask myself why we cannot do the same here. It is why Copenhagen has such a high percentage of cyclists.
It is a mindset that needs to be changed. It is not all plain sailing. We already have letters to the newspapers and I am sure many people will call well-known radio shows to tell us we are trying to kill rural Ireland or kill motorists and so on. However, decisions must be made, not just for the sake of easing congestion but also for the sake of our health and quality of life. It is extremely important that we do so.
The point was made that Transport 21 includes no provision for walking or cycling facilities. This is because it is primarily an infrastructural plan. Our current emphasis is on cycling, walking and sustainable travel and transport.
I have tried to go through all the questions as quickly as possible.
There is one question the Minister did not answer, which seems strange given his emphasis on the need for a change in mindsets. Does that does not extend to the choice of ministerial car?
This is what startled Deputy McManus. I am glad the Deputy is only startled this once by a statement of Deputy Broughan's. I never fail to be startled by some of his statements.
That is a good answer.
During my time in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, I was successful in my request to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Garda, whichever is responsible, to purchase hybrid cars, one of which was to be for my own use. When the cars were delivered, however, I was not allocated one. I have been driven in a Mercedes petrol car for the past 15 months. In making the decision on a new vehicle, I took advice from a technically competent person, whom I had better not name, that a Mercedes or Audi diesel car would be a far more energy-efficient choice than a hybrid given the mileage involved in my case.
Does the Minister mean it was a better choice in terms of cost or in respect of carbon emissions?
Both. I am told by my driver that the new Audi A6 diesel achieves roughly 60 miles to the gallon, twice or three times what we got in the Mercedes. In addition, the emission levels are good. Given the considerable mileage that my driver stacks up--
I hope the Minister will share this information with his Green Party colleagues.
They make their own choices. I am sure Deputy Broughan will put on the record the type of car he drives and how emissions-friendly it is.
That is a cheap shot and the Minister knows it.
The Deputy is one to talk.
The Minister should show the way.
Deputy McManus never fails to go for a cheap shot. She started it.
I am asking the questions and the Minister is answering them.
I apologise for being late. I have done some research into the relative fuel efficiency of different cars and engines. I had been driving a three litre petrol car which was not fuel efficient in terms of emissions or mileage. I initially intended to purchase a hybrid vehicle in the same model and with a slightly larger engine, but I found it was something of a con job when I looked at the figures. Instead, it made more sense to change to a car with a diesel engine. In switching from a three litre petrol car to a 1.9 litre diesel car, I have at least halved my emissions, perhaps even more when one takes fuel consumption into account. The hybrid label does not necessarily mean a vehicle is more fuel efficient. That may be true in the case of a Prius or similar but in the case of larger, heavier petrol engines, whether flexifuel or hybrid, one is often using so much extra fuel that when one takes fuel efficiency into account in terms of mileage, the emissions are higher.
I am absolutely astonished by the figures provided by the Minister on fuel tourism. Almost 15% of total final consumption relates to fuel tourism, five times as much as accounted for by public service vehicles, for example. Is this something we could work to address on an all-island basis? It does not make sense to have large numbers of people in the North travelling across the Border to fill up their vehicles with cheaper fuel in the South. That degree of movement in itself is responsible for a significant consumption of fuel. This is an area that requires some imaginative thinking in the same vein as co-operation on the electricity grid, for example, where we worked together in a practical way. Perhaps the Minister will consider it and come back with suggestions as to why it can or cannot be done. Co-operation on this issue might necessitate some type of common fuel taxation policy on the island. It is worth considering.
The motor taxation changes announced in the budget are welcome in principle. There is a major difficulty, however, in that they only apply to cars purchased after next July. The vast majority of people do not purchase new cars. The argument is that we cannot deal with second-hand cars because most of the engines do not have an emissions rating label, but there are many cars already on the road that have emissions labelling on the engines. If somebody goes to the trouble of getting an emissions rating label, they should be entitled to avail of the reward system for changing to lower-emissions vehicles. As it stands, if a driver cannot afford a new car but wants to switch, for example, from a 2003 Mercedes to a 2004 Fiesta in order to reduce emissions, he or she will receive no reward.
This scenario is relevant to most people. In theory, we are taking the correct approach. In reality, however, most people who are willing to downgrade or upgrade for emissions reasons will do so by purchasing a second-hand rather than a new car. It is nonsense to say that second-hand engines do not have emissions ratings. A motorist without an emissions rating on the engine should not be eligible for any reward and should continue to be taxed under the old system. However, if one goes to the trouble of purchasing a second-hand car that has an emissions rating or of having the engine of one's current vehicle assessed, there should be some reward.
There is a contradiction in regard to bio-fuel targets. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, is at one with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, on this issue. Every time we talk about bio-fuels, the response from the Government, and rightly so, is that there is a potential problem in this regard. As the bio-fuel industry grows, we will be competing for land with the food sector, which will have many consequences both here and in the developing world. It is not logical to express that type of concern and scepticism as to whether bio-fuels are viable while, at the same time, committing ourselves to mandatory blending of 5% bio-fuel content in petrol and diesel by 2009. It means we are effectively saying that we are not sure this is the direction we should be going in but we are setting a mandatory target anyway.
I am a strong supporter of bio-fuels. My point is not intended as a cheap shot at the Minister but is rather a genuine concern. I will declare an interest in that my family are grain farmers in Cork. The price of grain has increased by 60% in one year and bio-fuels have made a major contribution to that because of world wheat prices and ethanol. We need to know where we are going. Either we buy into this and take the hit in terms of increased food prices or we find an alternative to bio-fuels. We should not express scepticism about the viability of bio-fuels while simultaneously setting mandatory blending targets, which I understand is the only way we can make bio-fuels viable. This is a contradictory policy and it must be reviewed.
If we are to rely on a mandatory 5% blending of bio-fuels, such bio-fuels must be produced in Ireland. It makes no sense to import by sea ethanol from South America because of the emissions arising from its transportation. In the context of climate change, that would be mad logic.
My understanding is that the national climate change strategy called for a 5% mix in the national bus fleet by the end of 2007. At present however, only six buses nationwide use a bio-fuel mix, all of which are tourism buses. Five operate in Dublin with a sixth in Cork. The Minister would receive strong support from members were he to take a hard line with Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus and tell them that all new buses must be hybrid or capable of using a bio-fuel mix and to get on with it. If so doing is more expensive, that is a cost we must bear.
I refer to planning requirements. I take the Minister's point that between now and 2010, the infrastructural priority in the national development plan is to build roads between cities. I am a beneficiary as I drive between Dublin and Cork on most weeks. However, the National Roads Authority has other projects such as, for example, the N22 linking Cork city with Ringaskiddy Port in Cork, which I understand will be sanctioned within the next 12 months. Does it not make sense to mandate a planning requirement for cycling lanes and bus routes as part of such projects? Projects involving a bypass or the main Cork to Dublin road would be different. However, when, for example, a national road is being put in place between a port and a city for economic and strategic reasons, it also makes sense to use that piece of infrastructure to link up large communities in places like Douglas, Rochestown and Carrigaline that have a combined population of approximately 50,000. When such pieces of infrastructure are being built from scratch, it should be possible to include cycling and bus routes.
In my experience, the major problem that arises in cities is that although one wishes to put in place bus and cycle lanes, the roads simply are not wide enough. Consequently, when new roads would benefit from the provision of cycling and bus lanes, it would make sense to include them from the outset rather than going to the expense of trying to do so at a later stage. This would constitute proactive thinking.
I welcome the Minister and thank him for his presentation. In respect of bio-fuels, the White Paper sets a target of 10% by 2020 for road transport fuel, subject to production being sustainable and second generation bio-fuels becoming commercially available. For clarity, I presume the term second generation bio-fuels refers to residual or second crop products. Very well.
I presume the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with climate change or energy issues draws in all the relevant Departments to discuss such matters. This is a critical point because if everything else is subject to it, doing so must be the first step taken. In this regard, sugar beet constitutes a lost crop that had huge potential and I note the proposed use of straw. A pet hobby horse of mine is that Bord na Móna owns much land that produces an exhaustible crop in the form of peat. It has no interference with the food chain, has the potential to grow renewable crops and to be carbon neutral. Apparently however, no one is exploring this option and I do not know the reason. Perhaps it is a subject of the Cabinet sub-committee's discussions.
The Minister's briefing document goes on to state that the targets will accelerate innovation and research and development in next generation fuels. I presume the Cabinet sub-committee will work towards providing incentives to Teagasc and the colleges. I refer to money resources to carry out such research and development.
All members are aware that agricultural emissions account for 28% of Ireland's greenhouse gases. The capture of methane from animal slurry storage can be considered in the same manner as carbon capture from coal. The technology is already present, can be implemented relatively simply and huge potential exists in this regard. An award-winning Irish cheese production facility in south County Wexford has been doing it for years. Although it is very simple and relatively inexpensive, no one has considered it.
I consider it to be worthwhile to offer these suggestions because all the targets are subject to production becoming available. It is the job of the joint committee, the Cabinet sub-committee and Government to ensure that all that is needed will happen.
I will follow on from Deputy Coveney's remarks on biodiesel. Dublin Bus will acquire 300 new buses over a five-year period. It is to be hoped this target will be met and the buses delivered early in the Government's lifetime. However, a target of 30% biodiesel blend has been set for the 300 new buses and while bearing in mind that one must aspire to pushing out the boundaries, is this target achievable or has the bar been set too high? As no vehicles operated by Dublin Bus use bio-fuel at present, this target appears to be somewhat beyond reach. Has the Minister considered revising it or does he believe it to be achievable over the five-year period?
As for the last point raised by Deputies Andrews and Coveney, the commitment is to move to a 5% biodiesel blend in the current bus fleet as soon as possible and thereafter to ensure that as part of future fleet replacement, all new buses can operate on a 30% blend.
Deputy Coveney has questioned whether Ireland will be capable of producing sufficient biodiesel or bio-fuel. If this can be achieved, the purpose of the commitment is to ensure the public transport fleet is capable of using it.
There should not be any difficulty in reaching the 5% target and I have instructed the relevant bodies to do so very quickly. However, as a number of Deputies have noted, doubts have been cast on the use of bio-fuels and biodiesels. A certain amount of this is scepticism. Vast areas of the world such as the continent of Africa contain good agricultural areas that are completely underused. Such lands could be used without displacing food production because they do not produce anything at present. I see wonderful opportunities in places in which opportunities never existed previously for the production of energy crops. Such crops would not simply supply the global bio-fuel industry but also would feed an enormous number of people in several parts of Africa who go hungry on a fairly frequent and regular basis. While one can be highly negative in this regard, such joined-up thinking suggests that possibilities exist.
As for the point made by Deputy Coveney on the 5% target, the Government's policy was to create the competition first by introducing the subsidy scheme for the production of bio-fuels up to 2009 and thereafter to opt for the mandatory obligation from 2009 onwards. The reason it chose to pursue this course was because of the complete absence of a bio-fuels industry in Ireland. It reckoned that opting immediately for a mandatory obligation simply would have resulted in the straightforward importation of bio-fuels.
What we hope will happen and what is happening in a number of instances is that a native industry is being built up. We will never be able to produce enough bio-fuels on our own in this country to reach the targets we have set for ourselves in the energy Green Paper because of the constraints mentioned by the Deputy such as land use and food production. We could never be self-sufficient in that area. However, we will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels by use of the mechanisms here.
In respect of the planning requirements raised by the Deputy, I understand that cycle lanes will be mandated on new roads. I note that many of the national roads have cycle lanes. One of the matters we are discussing as part of the integrated cycle strategy would be that we mandate that. There is much that can be done at local government level even on local roads that would help to facilitate increased cycling. This issue will be addressed in the cycle policy.
There has been a significant increase in the levels of funding for sustainable and renewable energy over the past few years, which will continue. Deputy Doyle is right in saying that we need to act in respect of wind and wave energy and so on, in addition to agriculture, land use and so on, which are the areas focused upon by the Deputy. Money is going into that and schemes are in place where there is a focus on sustainable energy. I launched a scheme when I was Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources which is focused on these areas and is working very well. The Deputy is right in saying that we must think outside the box. We cannot continue as we are.
Based on knowledge gained in my previous Ministry, I know that Bord na Móna is very focused on the use of the cut-away bogs for renewable energy from a variety of different perspectives. I am not sure what progress it has made but it is a major part of Bord na Móna's business plan over the next five years.
In respect of road tax, could the Minister address the question of second-hand cars?
When one talks about introducing any kind of change, there must always be a changeover period. I do not disagree with what the Deputy is saying. The reason for the lead-in to this initially was because if one bounced this on local authorities and our system in Shannon, it would not have happened. A six-month lead-in was introduced to switch around systems. It is something I will take up with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Deputy has a valid point in respect of the fact that people who go to the bother of getting an emissions certificate, which one can get from the NCT as well because it is one of the things it measures, should be given the option. It is worth considering.
Otherwise, the early changers who have already changed due to conscience rather than a reward system, which now exists, will be punished for that. It makes no sense. Nobody is suggesting that old engines should be under the new system but if one can get the engine rated for emissions, one should be allowed to choose the new system as a reward system for improving one's emissions.
I do not disagree with Deputy Coveney. It is fair.
Would it be sensible to include it as an amendment to the Finance Bill? Deputy Chris Andrews had another point to make.
Does the Minister have projections for savings on carbon emissions arising out of those changes or it is too early to do so?
They are outlined in the national climate change strategy. There are technology improvements in--
I was referring only to motor tax.
The figure is approximately 50,000 tonnes per year in respect of motor tax. I want to clarify that this is a tentative figure in case I am accused of misleading people.
Is it the case that Dublin Bus simply needs to have the capability of 30% and that it will not be mandatory?
To go back to an earlier point made by the Chairman, when people will not voluntarily decide to comply with Government policies, I am inclined to say that they should be given mandatory directions. I would not like to give a signal to Dublin Bus that I do not want it to reach the target of 30% as quickly as possible. It should buy into it and make arrangements in respect of it. I do not accept an argument put forward on its behalf that it will cost much more. Many things will cost all of us a bit more but we are talking about improving the environment, health and the quality of life for people and sometimes that costs a little bit. I would not like to send any signal to say that a "mañana” approach is acceptable and that Dublin Bus need not bother to do it because I am already talking to Dublin Bus about the 5% target.
Those days are over.
So the Minister has not ruled out making it mandatory?
I have not ruled it out but I would prefer it if Dublin Bus did it voluntarily.
The Minister answered a question about fuel tourism earlier. Fuel tourism used to go in the other direction. Unless and until we try to create an all-island market for this issue, there will always be fuel tourism going in one direction or another, which seems crazy.
The only way to solve this is to--
Bring Great Britain into the eurozone.
That could be of some help. The other way is get all-party agreement that will raise the rate of tax here up to that of Northern Ireland if anybody wants to go that route. Fuel tourism has gone either one way or another. Our rates are lower than in the UK. Members saw the debate on corporation tax and the efforts made by Northern Ireland to make a special case for itself. I do not think the UK government will be for turning on this. While I have a reputation for suggesting things that are slightly out of the ordinary I am not that mad yet.
In respect of the national cycle policy, some years ago when climate change was not spoken about, trains had a carriage where one could leave one's bicycle if one was going anywhere. I have been writing for months trying to get such a provision introduced on our trains. We are talking about encouraging people. It is the same with putting a stand on the back of taxis so that they can carry bicycles. These are the kind of things that create awareness. It will not cost the earth but it makes such a difference. We should be setting an example. People may cycle one way but they may not be able to cycle two ways. It would not be a great burden for them to put their bicycles on trains, nor would it be a burden to put stands on the back of taxis. The taxi regulator discussed an eventual limit on the age of taxis. Why do we not consider the future and, for example, require taxis to convert to alternative fuels by 2012? Deputy Coveney and I saw such in operation in Hong Kong. Is that not right?
They were all LPG. All taxis were obviously mandated.
We could give people advance notice. The Minister got the sense today of how ready we all are to take the hard decisions if we get the direction and support of the Government to do so. We have gone past the time of trying to persuade people and there is no point in our listening to the hard facts. We are not discussing our generation, but future generations and we have a moral responsibility. While the decision may be difficult, we can explain what we are doing if we operate together. There should be an all-party committee such as this at which Ministers are prepared to share with members.
If it is a question of supporting sound and sensible decisions, we have a responsibility to do so. The sense I get from the committee's membership is that we will do so. Everyone is serious, our attendance is first class and there is a willingness to read and learn. We are politicians, not experts, and we are trying to educate ourselves. When we see opportunities — stands on the backs of taxis, cycle lanes and so on — and we can get something positive out of each session, we are making progress. It is dangerous for people to cycle on some of the cycle lanes I have seen. They are being stuck in for the sake of sticking them in. If one takes the inside lane, one is driving in a cycle lane and breaking the law. If there are to be cycle lanes, they should be proper and not excuses for cycle lanes. People will not cycle on them if they are dangerous. One would not let one's children on some of the cycle lanes along roads with heavy traffic because they are unsuitable. If we are serious, we should get on with it.
I thank the Minister for attending this meeting and inviting us to share in his new proposal. We are pleased to examine any proposals he has and we invite him to return to listen to our ideas on them after we have had an opportunity to examine them. I thank his officials for joining us today. Let us hope we can move forward.
Our next meeting will be on 20 February and the Environmental Protection Agency and Professor Jerry Murphy will attend in respect of finalising emissions trading. At 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28 February, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, will attend the committee.
Are we inviting the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Yes.