Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

I support resolutions Nos. 2 and 3, which are as interesting for what they fail to say as for what they say. I will highlight one or two aspects that occur to me. It is interesting that we are dealing with the difficulties that arise when there are two Administrations on the island with different views on excise and other charges. That does not only happen regarding home heating oil. The change is valid to alleviate the hardship caused on one side of the Border as it competes with the other.

There have been discussions on this issue, so why must we have this measure when discussions took place between the Departments of Finance and Environment, Heritage and Local Government on other areas? We do not, for example, take account of the fact that the large volume of fuel being bought south of the Border and burned in the North is enough to add €50 million a year to our Kyoto penalties. I wonder about the motivation for this measure and whether it serves only to avoid the elephant in the room. The Minister for Finance referred in his Budget Statement to the provision of €270 million to fund a programme of carbon allowance purchases. This sum of money could be used to provide grants for housing insulation and other measures to save energy, but instead it is being exported from the country.

Other issues come into play in terms of harmonising regulations on either side of the Border. I understand, for example, that it costs the Northern authorities €44 million per annum to manage illegal dumping from the South, which arises because of the differences in refuse charges in the two jurisdictions. It may be time to take a more practical approach to the harmonising of regulations North and South. Perhaps this measure is a signal that this is beginning to happen. I welcome it for that reason but seek clarification as to whether it will lead to a more comprehensive addressing of all these issues North and South.

I welcome the measure relating to tobacco products. It is easy to welcome it because, as a non-smoker, the price increase will not affect me. I meet many smokers who say they would like to give up a habit that is such a waste of money but are unable to do so because they are addicted. Given that a considerable number of elderly people smoke, I wonder whether this measure involves some clever arithmetic in that the increase in the pension, for example, may be offset by the increase in excise duty on tobacco products. There are various ways of looking at this from an economic point of view. Ultimately, however, I support the notion of getting across the message that smoking is bad for one's pocket as well as one's health. That seems to be the thinking behind this measure.

It would be interesting to discover whether this increase is sufficient in the context of the cost to the health service of dealing with the effects of smoking. Has any such figure been calculated? What is the cost to the health service of meeting the needs of those who smoke? The health service needs as many resources as possible and the greatest possible capacity in terms of hospital beds. We must take action where we can reduce the possibility of people requiring hospital treatment.

See this speech in context