Mr. James Nix:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for taking the opening statement as read. I would like to move straight to the heads of the Bill. A number of the heads cover proposed national and sectoral roadmaps, including heads 3, 5 and 7. On one reading of the heads, the national roadmap should be produced first. On another reading, especially in head 7, the sectoral roadmaps would be produced first. An Taisce believes that the national roadmap should come before the sectoral roadmaps, and that the legislation should make this clear. This sequence makes the most sense, because the comparative level of action required within each sector is itself a matter for national government in the first instance. If it was to be the other way around and the sectors were to come first, that would be to ask individual Departments to second guess an allocation that needs to be made by a whole government decision. Ultimately, the result would not be effective.

If we turn to the roadmaps, the emissions figures for each sector need to be included in that national roadmap. The relevant sectoral figure would need to be brought into the sectoral roadmap for each sector. Some people use the word "targets" here, but whatever term is used, the idea is the same. Without emissions figures, the work of this committee would largely be in vain. The reason for that is there would be no way to measure the link between the level of intention and the level of final action. To put it another way, the inclusion of emissions figures places on each roadmap a north point and a scale. An Taisce does not believe the emissions figures need to be capable of litigation. The purpose here is that of political accountability, rather than a legal purpose. We think it would be helpful to make express provision for remedial action for any given sector. Where remedial action is required in any given sector, the expert body could provide direct assistance, helping the relevant Department re-chart its interventions and bring emissions back into line with the roadmap.

There appears to be some internal consistency on the heads of the Bill in respect of the expert body. Head 7 states that the expert body shall advise the Minister, but head 5 is much weaker and states only that the Government may consult with the expert body. We suggest that the language in head 5 needs to be strengthened with the addition of "will" or "shall". More critically, the expert body needs independent publishing powers. We think the model of the fiscal advisory council is a good one. Its reports are published ten days after being submitted to the Minister for Finance. It is possible for the Minister for Finance to decline to accept the fiscal council's recommendations or assessment, but in the event that the Minister does so, he or she must lay before the Dáil a statement outlining the Government's reasons for not accepting the assessment. This model is working well and we suggest it be embraced here.

Head 6 provides that the expert body will include the director general of the EPA, the chief executive of SEAI, the director of Teagasc and the director of the ESRI. The expert body could have no more than five members in total. Due to the way it is framed, it could arise that there would be no scientist on the expert body. One amendment which the committee might consider would be the addition of the appointment of a climate scientist of international standing. Overall, the legislation does pledge itself to be guided by the science. We need to give this practical effect in the make up of the expert body.

We have been following the debate since the publication of the heads of the Bill, and we can see quite an amount of tension being put on claims regarding the cost of action. We have seen comparatively little voice for the economic benefits of action.

If the Chairman can indulge me I can give a few examples of the benefits. The first is very close to the Minister’s heart. On 7 May he announced the banning of the burning of smoky coal, to be phased in over a three year period. His intention is that, working with the Northern Assembly, the phase-out of smoky coal will apply in tandem North and South. We were there on 7 May as part of the Inhale Alliance which is working with the Asthma Society and others for better air quality. Five weeks after the Minister’s announcement came news of 140 new jobs in CPL, Europe’s largest supplier of smokeless coal. The company announced that this employment was a direct response to the Minister’s pledge to ban smoky coal. That is just one of the clearest examples of the economic benefits of progressive regulation. We can look forward to 140 new jobs. I know that the committee and politicians in general invariably hear from vested interests that back the status quoor companies that stand to gain larger market shares. They rarely hear from interests which will grow with positive regulation and bring jobs.

Cycling is another excellent example. Cycling has been flourishing in Ireland since the introduction of the cycle to work scheme, Dublinbikes in the capital and the Greenway in Mayo. Cycling to work brings with it a reduced number of sick days, which are now worth approximately €14 million annually to the national economy. Overall, cycling is estimated to be worth in excess of €0.25 billion to the Irish economy annually and this figure grows with the opening of additional bike shops.

This brings me to our third example, An Taisce’s green schools programme. This has shown that with dedicated intervention the percentage of children being driven to school can be reduced from almost 60% to just above 40%. This means less imported oil and fewer climate emissions. It also means less childhood obesity. A walk or cycle to school has been shown to be one of the best ways to beat childhood obesity. Nowhere in the transport, environment or health care budgets will the benefits of reduced childhood obesity be counted.