Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for the different points that they have raised. I will begin with the points put forward by Deputy Doherty. He is correct in stating that two countries within the European Union are pursuing the action that he has described, but 25 are not doing so. As for what those other countries are doing, they are doing the kind of things that we are looking at doing, which is putting in place social welfare measures to support those who are affected the most by it and putting in place other things to try to support families and workers at a time of big challenge.

Of course, the most significant thing we are doing to try to help families with the rising cost of living is to increase tax credits and reduce the amount of income at which somebody pays the higher rate of income tax in Ireland, something which Sinn Féin and Deputy Doherty are opposed to. If the Deputy looks at the Sinn Féin budget submission, which, incidentally, does not include the VAT measure he is now championing, there are no measures that talk about how the Deputy will significantly reduce the cost of living in the way that, for example, the changes that we are making to tax credits and to the standard rate cut-off point are capable of doing. The measure that the Deputy is championing in respect of VAT is not included in the Sinn Féin budget submission. Somebody on a middle income who is experiencing a rising cost of living should benefit from the tax changes that the Government is making from 1 January that are about trying to support workers at a time in which costs are going up, which Sinn Féin is opposed to doing.

I have also taken the opportunity to look at the measures that Deputy Doherty is proposing here to try to make public transport more available. The Deputy is proposing an increase of €49 million in funding for the Department of Transport on current terms, of which €25 million would be a grant for taxi drivers. The Deputy is proposing a change in the Department of Transport funding of €119 million, of which €40 million is for roads improvements - something I would support. However, of that €119 million, only €32 million is increased investment in the public transport fleet. Deputy Doherty is talking about wanting to increase and improve options for those who use public transport but in his alternative budget, which I am sure the Deputy would want to implement if he was Minister for Finance, there is no evidence that he has the thinking, the solutions or the vision to make that happen. This is derived from the document the Deputy has that he has championed.

At a time when we will be approaching a point where we will see families under pressure from energy prices that are going up for reasons that are far bigger than the change in carbon taxes, we will be making a change in personal taxes that is targeted at helping them, which, I accept, everybody will benefit from, and Deputy Doherty is against doing that. The Deputy does not believe that should happen. While I understand why Deputy Doherty is championing this idea, the fact that the majority of countries in the European Union are not doing it points to the fact that there are different ways of doing it. Those are different ways and different policies that the Government is pursuing and implementing, particularly through what we are looking to do with changes in personal taxation.

Deputy Boyd Barrett said something very important about darker forces at work that would seek to introduce further division at a time in which we need to make a change in how we use carbon and how we organise our economies and even our societies in view of the imminence of the climate crisis. I take the Deputy's point that we need to challenge ourselves about how we can maintain public consent for what we are doing at a time when there are already so many pressures evident on building. That is why we are using the money that we are receiving from a higher level of carbon tax to reinvest in things that can be meaningful to help our society cope with the changes that we will have to make and that may be imminent to deal with the climate crisis, such as what we are looking to do with the retrofitting of local authority homes.

I take the Deputy’s point that we need to do more and do it quicker. Ultimately, however, we need to pay for how we are going to do it. That is why we are putting so much of the money back into social welfare measures to maintain that consent.

In the change in carbon tax that is often pointed to as an example of the potential to galvanise public support against this, which is the change in fuel taxation that happened in France, my understanding is that the additional revenue just went into the general coffers of the French state. In Ireland, we have made a very different decision so that we are, in effect, hypothecating the additional tax revenue that comes in from the higher taxes to try to win and maintain public support for the changes we are making at a time in which things are tough enough.

I do not want to rehash the debate we had earlier. I would say to the Deputy, however, that there is another danger here, which is the danger of not being open and honest with those we serve regarding the kind of change that we will have to make. The kind of change that we will have to make will involve using lower amounts of carbon and engaging completely with our environment but in a fundamentally different way. Deputy Doherty is right that this something that states are not in a position to do at the moment. However, it does not take away from the fact that, again, the overwhelming majority of scientists and economists who are experts on this topic say that carbon taxation is part of what we have to do if we are to have any hope of bringing about change in our society in advance of nature completely changing in front of our eyes. I accept it is a difficult argument to make at this point but it is an argument that is worth making, and it is worth making in this Finance Bill and in the months to come as we have to make the case for this measure.

In regard to the points made by Deputy Barry on excess winter capacity, I will definitely look at the data sets to which he referred to understand this a bit more. In the short time in which he made his point to me, I have taken a look to try to understand the issue and the data set to which he referred. Any death that happens in Ireland at any point in the year is a death we are trying to avoid, particularly if it is for reasons we can control or influence. From the quick look I have had at the data to which the Deputy refers, he is correct that, across the winter period, there appear to be pointers of excess winter mortality in the country. However, the same data also indicated there has been a decline in Ireland since 2009, when the recording may first have begun. This is only a provisional point from me and I will study this further before Report Stage. Nonetheless, the data suggest excess winter mortality has declined and that there is a broad set of factors that lead to that.

On the carbon tax point in particular, I go back to what I said earlier, namely, out of all of the reasons the price of energy is going up at the moment, carbon tax accounts for a small share of the total increase in energy prices during this year. It is a small share and there are other reasons behind it. The Deputy made the point we should be taxing the big companies and the big users of energy more but they will be paying carbon tax. Anybody who is consuming the forms of energy covered by this carbon tax will be paying it. They will pay more because they use more energy; they can afford to pay more and they will. Many of those companies are now making commitments to move to net zero and to reduce their use of carbon by 2030. That is the contribution they will have to make to play their part in how we get ready for the change that is coming as we try to reduce harm.