Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I agree with the two previous speakers. It is very important and significant and it is a good day for Irish climate policy when there is clear agreement, but I acknowledge that among certain parties there are different views, which is perfectly valid. Among a number of parties, however, there is agreement that we will accept the advice of the Climate Change Advisory Council to raise the carbon price to €80 per tonne, at least, by 2030.

There is real importance in the clear commitment that we are ring-fencing any such revenue.

We still have to decide whether it is for hypothecation or whether it is a dividend that is returned to the citizens. There is real advantage in that latter option in regard to protecting those on lower incomes in particular. It has real advantages in that if people are saving energy, they are getting more net cash gain from it. If there are proposals on how hypothecation would work better, that is what we need to work out in the next few months in a plan, and we should be open to different options. If someone else comes up with a brilliant version of what we could do with the money, that should not be ruled out. This is significant in that it is cast-iron. If this consensus makes its way into the decision not just of this Government but probably of a future Government, although it depends who gets elected, that is a significant gain for environmental policy. The revenue is not a tax to raise money. It is a tax to give a signal and to help the climate action we need to take.

Third, with regard to the new amendments, tying this to an evidence-based plan makes rational and obvious sense. We have to prepare that plan under law. The European governance package that was agreed sets out that we have to have a national energy and climate action plan by the end of the year. That will be a plan that has to direct what we are going to do over the next ten years to 2030, so of course we have to do this. The work of this committee from now until the end of the year is to assist the Government in the development of that plan and to open up that process as the EU governance system encourages. What we have done in this committee is probably one of the exemplar models within the EU, if one talks to European Commission officials about how parliaments should engage in that process. We have started well by having a Citizens' Assembly, by going into committee in public session and by going into our own private sessions, so that is a good process. Those three gains are very good and significant.

The one risk I fear is that this is such a politically contentious issue. It is the issue the media will talk about above anything else. They will never talk about governance, climate systems or retrofitting, which is not that sexy, or about changing land use or peatlands restoration, which is where we could make the big carbon savings but which are hard to get on the six o'clock news. We do not need carbon tax to become a political football, bouncing around for the next ten years and certainly not for the next six months. We all know there is a risk in the next six months as we go into a potentially tough budget and I do not want carbon tax to be in the middle of that. We have a chance here to give certainty, and to get it out from the political game and into policy would help. It is not the key measure. It will do 10% to 15% of what we need to do but given we have a 70% gap, 10% is significant.

I have one further amendment to put. The second page of the draft recommendations as presented states:

In view of the above:

That the Minister for Finance should set out a carbon price trajectory that rises to €80 per tonne by 2030...

My amendment proposes the wording: "That the Minister for Finance should set out a compromise price trajectory that, starting in 2020, rises to €80 per tonne by 2030". I believe there is agreement on this, although those who do not agree with a carbon tax do not agree with it starting in any year. However, among those of us who have been arguing in favour of this, my understanding throughout our negotiations and deliberations is that there has been common agreement that this is something that will start this year. Having heard the call from the students, some of whom are still in the Visitors Gallery, I believe we should act now. We should start this year and not wait 12 years. If we do not start next year, we all know that, in politics, the year after that is not going to be any easier. In fact, this is probably the moment in time more than any other moment because of those climate strikes putting pressure on us to get this over the line. I put forward that amendment to make sure we are clear that this would start in 2020. Other than that, our party backs the proposal.