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

I will make a comment that is useful to the discussion before asking questions. The environmental movement globally wants to move away from putting all the emphasis on individual responsibility and concentrate on tackling the problem at source. That is why we are fixated and interested in keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

Professor FitzGerald is right in saying there is an issue of security because of what is happening in the UK. In lengthy discussions with people involved in that process in the past three years, I have never heard anyone state that the UK negotiators are considering weakening the energy security arrangements or co-operation in respect of energy. As the professor indicated, the UK is absolutely exposed because its North Sea offshore gas flows are decreasing by 7% or 8% per year. The UK is critically dependent on Norwegian and continental gas connections for its security. That issue can be and I believe will be addressed in whatever Brexit outcome arises. If the UK tries to operate as an isolated system, it will be left with the most incredibly expensive electricity, in particular, which will kill its digital and other industries. The alternative to such investment in gas infrastructure is in electricity interconnection to allow that balancing capability on a big scale. This is big thinking. That would be a much more secure investment because investing in fossil fuel must stop now.

What Professor FitzGerald said about the budget is true. There is no clarity coming from the Department of Finance. In the area of transport, for example, it is just given as a lump sum for land-use transport. There is no breakdown between public transport and roads. I have asked the Committee on Budgetary Oversight and the Parliamentary Budget Office if they could answer that question but they have never been able to do it.

Let us put aside the existing expenditure. I know that is a bad habit in our budgets. We are always looking at the new. What is new in the budget is that we provided a potential €1.5 billion as a cash payment to businesses in the event of a no-deal Brexit and we gave €90 million to climate action. Would it not have been far better to give €1.5 billion to climate action in a way that would also have protected those sectors most at risk from Brexit to pay farmers to do as Professor FitzGerald suggested and take the corner part of a field to plant native forestry, which a farmer could do. They would be learning forestry by doing that. They could also cut the hedgerows. We could also invest radically in cycling and walking infrastructure or in apprenticeships to allow young people to build up expertise for retrofitting. Was Professor FitzGerald disappointed with the budget in that context? I would characterise it as €1.5 billion going to business as usual versus €90 million to some climate initiative?