Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. Even in the heat of the budget debate it makes sense to have set time aside to talk about the carbon budget, which is a welcome new element to the budget debate.

The debate we had on Thursday evening on the introduction of a carbon tax or carbon levy was an embarrassment to this House. It turned into a Punch and Judy show and a slagging match, which I was embarrassed about. It is unfortunate that when we are introducing something as significant as a new carbon levy, a carbon tax for the first time, that we had such a debate.

It is also unfortunate that when my party has genuine concerns about the way in which this new tax is being implemented that those concerns were dismissed on the supposed understanding that Fine Gael wants to play politics with the issue or does not understand it. I found that very frustrating also.

We have published our views on climate change. As I indicated on Wednesday night, we proposed a higher carbon value, but we had also proposed that there would be certain exemptions for good reason considering the current state of the economy. We now have a really unacceptable dichotomy, whereby we will charge consumers a carbon charge for using fossil fuels, for good reason. We are continuing not only to allow energy generators to use carbon-based fuels with no charge to them, but on top of that we are requiring them to charge consumers for something that is costing them nothing and attaching a carbon element to electricity charges. That is the major objection I have to our carbon charging strategy.

Consumers are paying on the double and large energy generating companies are making windfall profits on the back of that to the tune of €220 million last year with the exception of the ESB which gave some money back in a different way. That must change. We have a pool of money here. If there were a tax on windfall profits made on the back of consumers, we could use it as a carbon fund to do all sorts of other things on top of what the Minister proposes. The Minister seems to refuse to consider that and dismisses the issue as if it is not a valid one. I cannot understand that, given he is someone who has a genuine concern in regard to carbon management.

I refer to forestry. The one thing on which anyone who is concerned about carbon management, carbon reduction and creating carbon sinks must agree is that we must take a more aggressive and proactive approach to planting trees, or afforestation. This issue was painted in the budget in a way that suggested the Government will allocate an extra €121 million for afforestation next year. This year we spent €119 million. The Government said that next year, we will plant 7,000 hectares when we have not even hit 5,000 this year. I do not see how the sums add up.

Planting trees not only makes sense for the environment but it is also very labour intensive. I appeal to the Minister to try to increase the priority of forestry. In the national climate change strategy, to which we are supposed to be operating, there is an aspiration that 15,000 hectares of trees will be planted annually. The programme for Government states 10,000 hectares. Next year we aspire to planting 7,000 hectares but the sums do not add up.

I appeal to the Minister to consider the two issues I raise, in particular the windfall profits tax. Consumers are getting hit on the double. A pool of money which we could use as a carbon fund is being pocketed by energy generators on a windfall profits basis. That is no longer acceptable, in particular in the context of introducing a new carbon charge for fossil fuels.

See this speech in context