Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I congratulate Deputy Boyle on getting his amendment accepted, which was no small feat. It is useful that we find ways of dealing with the financial implications of the Kyoto Protocol. The Government would probably like us to believe that, because the implications of the Kyoto Protocol will only kick in after the next general election, the matter should not be discussed in detail by this House. We were given the impression that, once the system of permit trading is agreed and the interests of big players and the cement industry in particular are addressed, all will be well.

However, we have been unable to learn from the Minister the implications of the Kyoto Protocol system on the cost of foreign direct investment. If Intel, Hewlett Packard or another company expands its operations in Ireland after the full Kyoto Protocol regime is in place, what will happen in terms of the cost of the inward foreign investment which we all want? These companies will not be included in the permit structure. I presume they will have to buy permits but that will be expensive. Will the Government assist them? We do not know the answers to critical questions such as this.

Controversy has arisen on the respective merits of concrete and timber framed housing. Certain advertisements claim that one building method is more efficient from a Kyoto Protocol point of view because of the energy conserved. There has been no debate on the implications of that for taxpayers. In light of what the Government has done thus far, it is not unreasonable to expect that PAYE taxpayers will be paying for this rather than those based offshore. The taxpayer will carry the burden of any levies or fines charged on Ireland as a consequence of our failure to meet Kyoto agreements.

Our Government freely entered into these agreements as part of its contribution to the fight against global warming. We have undertaken this as a liability, and we have no indication, even on a shadow estimate basis, of what it is likely to cost us. We should have an idea, as it would help to inform public debate. It would help to inform choices regarding the road we should take to keep the charges incurred as low as possible. As a result of our level of industrialisation at the time the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, our permit system and allowances are much less generous than those of more traditional industrial countries in Europe, which have higher levels of older industries and greater levels of associated pollution and greenhouse gases.

I welcome this proposal, and the Minister for Finance should welcome it also. It is difficult to gather from the Minister's colleagues, which of them, if any, is in charge of this issue. There has been much huffing and puffing from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, from time to time. He seems to be partly in charge of some element. There is some information from the Minister for Transport from time to time. In terms of the tax strategy group papers, it would seem that the primary responsibility for the overall shaping of policy rests with the Department of Finance and its Minister.

The amount of published documentation on this is meagre. There have been a number of papers from the ESRI setting out its opinion on what is likely to occur. As I have stated, the tax strategy group has published some papers. However, those papers, for the most part, are more than four years old. There is little current or up to date information on the costs we are likely to face. What has the Minister done in conjunction with his Department to establish the likely implications from a financial perspective of our commitments to the Kyoto Agreement?

Does the Minister have a budget or shadow estimates that would indicate cost? It would be interesting to ask the Minister the cost to the country this year if the Kyoto Protocol was fully in force and we were fully liable, as we will be some years down the road. Is there a current estimate for this? Does the Minister believe these obligations will arrive? There have been some suggestions that the Government believes this is an indefinite mañana scenario, and the cost will never arise. If this is the view of the Government, could the Minister explain why this is so?

See this speech in context