Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)

I take the opportunity of speaking on the motion before the House. This proposal was laid before the Dáil on 27 November, allowing only three days for discussion or research on the matter. Most Deputies are so busy they do not read everything that is laid before the Dáil, but this came to my attention yesterday at the Committee on the Environment and Local Government. At that meeting the Labour Party spokesman, Deputy Gilmore, the Green Party spokesman, Deputy Cuffe, and I asked that this motion should not be rushed or adopted before we had an opportunity to debate it in the Dáil. I thank the Government, particularly the Minister, Deputy Roche, for conceding to have this debate in the Dáil, which I believe is important. It is significant that at least we are having a debate even though we may be merely going through the motions in that the gun is already to the Minister's head in this matter.

It is extraordinary that we find ourselves in this situation. Just three days after the proposal was laid before the Dáil we are debating it, and it must go one way or the other. From what the Minister said, he will sign this proposal this evening because I presume a majority of Members will endorse it. That is democracy, in one sense, but it is not the way to handle a motion as important as this. In my 17 years in the House I have always noted that legislation or other matter that is rushed through the Dáil at the last minute never turns out to be satisfactory. The House is littered with examples.

I recall my first year in the Dáil when the famous rod licence Bill was rushed through on 18 December and signed into law. Then we had two years of a rod licence row in several constituencies, including mine, until the Government eventually had to back down. I know the present Minister was not responsible for that, but that is what happened because the legislation was rushed through the Dáil. Embarrassingly, two years later after everybody had seen the effects of the legislation, the Government backed down and abolished it. The damage done by that event has not yet been rectified in communities in my constituency.

We have had more recent examples of rushed legislation such as the refund of the nursing home charges Bill, rushed through the Dáil before Christmas and then repented over at leisure. It is a pity this motion is being dealt with in like manner. Nonetheless, I am glad we are having a debate. I blame the Government, first, for the delay. However, the Minister must have taken his eye off the ball at some stage or perhaps he was not at the match at all because this should not be happening in the manner that it is. After all, the Kyoto Protocol has existed for more than ten years. What has the Government been doing about reducing emissions over that time? Again, I am not blaming the current Minister, but this Government was in power all that time. What concrete steps were taken to ensure we would not be in the position we find ourselves?

I have glanced through the Minister's speech, much of which is very technical, and quite frankly some of it is above my head. That would not be so if I had the opportunity to research this matter properly. Figures are quoted to show what we should or might have been doing and what we did not do. The bottom line is that the Government is obviously going to buy its way out of its obligations instead of taking the action necessary to reduce emissions and meet the standards required as members of the European Union.

I recognise the Minister has a serious problem on his hands and that he has to sign on the dotted line some time today. Perhaps we sympathise with him to a certain extent, but it is the role of Opposition to point out that we should never have been put in that position. We should not be in that position today and neither should we have been yesterday at the Committee on Environment and Local Government. The problem still has to be resolved. We must reduce our emissions in Ireland if we are to meet the Kyoto requirements, rather than just buying our way out. This seems to me, as a lay person, to be the lazy man's way of doing the job. First, it will cost €5 million, then we will invest €15 million and then we will give €20 million to the banks. If Ireland gives €20 million in taxpayers' money to the banks I do not know how we can be sure it will go towards solving the problem in any way. It may take egg off the face of the Government, but it will certainly go no way towards solving the problem. Not everybody has confidence in the banks being able to solve the problem for Ireland, and again that is a short-term solution to the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

On the subject of EU legislation, serious conflicts can arise in the context of directives. There are EU directives affecting farming, for example, whereby REP schemes etc. stipulate that cattle should be taken off the land and put in sheds between September and March. We cannot damage the grass but nonetheless we put the cattle into slotted sheds with slurry pits that further add to our emissions problem. This is in conflict with the directive which stipulates that emissions must be reduced. That is just one example.

There are many others in EU directives, whereby the emissions problem is added to and then Government is required to take steps to reduce it. What has the Government done, for example, to ensure that all new houses have the necessary safeguards to reduce emissions? What is its policy on wind energy? Nobody is clear on that. What is the Government doing to resolve this problem instead of just taking the option now at the last minute, with a gun to its head, to buy its way out of trouble?

Perhaps in the short term people will be delighted that certain regulations were not brought in to reduce emissions, but in the long run it is the taxpayer and Ireland's position in the European Union that will suffer as a result of the Government having done nothing whatsoever to reduce emissions in its ten years in office. In the period from 2008 to 2012, Ireland has agreed to limit annual greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above the 1990 levels. While emissions in 2004 had been reduced to 23% over 1990 levels, achieving the protocol target without compromising economic and social development is extremely challenging. The Government did not take up this challenge, rather it ran away from it. We are now so far behind in our attempts that this emergency has arisen in the 11th hour and has put us in a position in which we should never have been.

The Minister has stated this is a problem for the entire planet. While this may be the case, today it is also a problem for the Minister of his own making, because he did not adequately foresee it. Why was this matter not discussed in the House on a day when it was adjourned because of a lack of business before it? I do not understand why this issue was left until the last minute before anything was done about it.

In 2003, the price of a barrel of oil stood at $35. This year, it is set to reach $70 again and we have been warned that the days of oil prices of $100 per barrel may not be too distant. What actions has the Government taken to ensure that our oil dependency would not continue to increase at its present rate? In his reply to this debate, the Minister should spell out the Government's policy on alternatives to oil. For example, what is the policy on electricity generation from wind energy?

Moreover, it is obvious that our European partners already have a serious headstart on Ireland in respect of emissions reduction. In 2001, Austria sourced 22% of its energy consumption from renewable sources. How does Ireland measure up? Ireland must consider what the rest of Europe is doing to address the energy crisis it now faces. Ireland must also ascertain how to develop an energy regime that is sustainable, renewable, clean and in accordance with the best health and safety practices, given that unlike many other EU countries, it does not rely on nuclear power and is unlikely to so do in the near future. Ireland must also guarantee security of supply. What is being done in this regard?

The EU has produced a Green Paper on energy that focuses on alternative and renewable energy. However, it also incorporates an ongoing reliance on nuclear energy. While Ireland must model its energy policy on that of the European Union, it must do so without the nuclear option. Consequently, development of an energy policy for Ireland is more complex, due to its obligation to ensure security of supply in an expanding economy while at the same time complying with the Kyoto principles. The Government has not taken up this challenge and must now take it up at the 11th hour.

Even if Ireland buys itself out of this challenge today, I fear the Government will become complacent again. When the real crunch comes at the end of the four year period, the Government might recall that it was able to buy itself out in November 2006. Although I do not know how many hundreds of millions of euro this will have cost the State, we may be obliged to buy ourselves out of it again, at a cost of billions instead of millions. This appears to be the road down which the Government is going. Therefore, we need an energy policy with short, medium and long-term targets, to be reviewed, tested and updated annually. We cannot postpone immediate action and we must test the effect of such action on a regular basis. The Minister and Government have failed to take up this challenge.

Fine Gael believes it is eminently possible to shift our dependence from imported non-renewable energy to indigenous renewable energy in respect of electricity generation. When Fine Gael enters Government — as it hopes to do — it will move towards generating at least 33% of Ireland's electricity needs from renewable sources by 2025. The party's policy document states it will try to achieve this target through State investment and a regulatory regime that will give access to the national grid to renewable sources above all others.

While I will not enter into the Bellanaboy debate, why did Ireland sign off to Shell the rights to the vast potential of its energy fields and offshore waters without any benefit to the State? This is a serious question for the Government as the decision has cost the State billions. This took place during the tenure of a Minister from my constituency, rather than that of the present Minister. He signed off the rights without any reward to the State, which was a desperate mistake and error.

As for electricity generation, wind energy has been described as an oil well in the sky. Although wind is an abundant resource in Ireland, it has one of the lowest levels of wind power generation in Europe. Wind energy will be vital if we are to meet the Kyoto targets. Fine Gael will prioritise the creation of a network of wind turbines to harness the potential of wind energy in Ireland, which is estimated to be the best in the European Union.

Closer to home, Fine Gael welcomes recent Government steps to provide grants to householders to assist them to move to renewable energy. However, the grant is in no way sufficient and came far too late. When in office, Fine Gael proposes a new deal for householders under which it will expand grant aid to those householders who wish to convert existing home heat technology to renewable energy technology. The grants will be increased from €500 to €3,500.

See this speech in context