Mr. Oisín Coghlan:

On the Repak issue, there is a rationale in Repak's concerns about a deposit return scheme. The system is set up to do what it says, as Ms O'Brien has outlined. She has shown how we can move past that. There is no good rationale, however, to Repak having an objection to a levy that would reduce the amount of packaging waste from supermarkets, for example. I refer to the single-use items going into flow. If Repak's business model is an impediment to waste prevention, it makes no sense and would need to be addressed. As it does not say it does not want any less waste coming out of supermarkets, there should not be any opposition to levying on the single-use items at the retail level. Ms O'Brien has addressed the issue of the deposit return scheme well.

Before dealing with the questions on motor tax and vehicle registration tax, I will respond to the question on land management. We have two nationally set climate targets, one for reducing emissions by 80% from buildings, transport and energy together by 2050, and one for achieving carbon neutrality in agriculture and land use. The latter is an easier target as it does not require necessarily as high a reduction. It requires, however, significant land use change and land use management. Essentially, the target is that any carbon pollution from agriculture by 2050 will be offset by enhanced bogs, sinks or grasslands, as long they meet international standards. That will involve, as mentioned, some sort of national plan. This is only a minor tweaking but it is a step and it is obviously important to see it in that broader context. One obvious place from which the money would come for realising that kind of plan is the Common Agriculture Policy, CAP, which is now under mid-term review. It was striking to hear the current Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, our own Phil Hogan, say the greening of the CAP had not succeeded as hoped in this current round and that more work needed to be done to achieve what was required. Given that Ireland has a tradition of defending the CAP and seeking to structure it in a way that maximises current income and given that the Government has adopted a national target, rather than one imposed by the European Union, of having carbon neutrality in agriculture and land use by 2050, it behoves us, as we enter this mid-term review of the CAP and the next iteration in the 2020s, to make it a national priority in the negotiations to focus on structuring the CAP in a way that promotes sustainable land use at national level. Another possible source of funding is the carbon tax, which will need to increase over time. It is not ring-fenced or hypothecated in the way the environment fund is but it certainly should be a source of income for transition of all kinds over time.

I refer to the specific question of how, if we move to electric cars in ten years, we could replace the income we get from motor tax and vehicle registration tax. Over time, some of the privileges that are now given to electric vehicles may need to be considered, as with the differential between diesel and petrol. Over time, I do not believe electric car use should be free. While much less would be paid for fuel, one would still need to pay to use the roads. Therefore, motor tax will over time have to reflect this if 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% or more of the cars are electric. We then would need to be able to raise revenue from the drivers to maintain the roads. It is right to consider the ten-year horizon and not make the mistake we made with diesel, which was ten years ago. We should consider how we can maintain a sustainable level of income through continuous reform over time.

On the just transition question and the PSO levy on peat-fired power stations of €120 million, we should stop subsidising the burning of peat.

A fossil fuel subsidy award was recently organised by the Climate Action Network at a European level. Ireland won the "sneaky special treatment" gold medal for subsidising peat burning for fossil fuel. It is the least efficient way of making electricity. It produces 22% of our pollution from power generation but only 9% of our electricity. There is an issue in that we cannot close the stations overnight and put people out of work. That is not politically or humanly responsible. However, it has been 19 years since we were first told by Government advisers to get out of peat burning to meet our climate targets. We have had time to organise this but have chosen not to until now. We would agree with some form of just transition forum being set up. It is really good to see the trade unions, both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and IMPACT, engaging very seriously on the issue. The public service obligation is one obvious source of income. We would argue that while perhaps half of that should go into the just transition fund, we will probably also need some of it to finance community energy and rooftop and community solar. We need to make sure that everyone benefits from the transition to renewable energy. I do not think we can put it all into worker protection, as it were. Some of it needs to go into promoting community and citizen energy.