Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

As Deputy Gilmore said, we had a lengthy discussion on this. The net effect of the amendment would be that each and every time the NTMA, the body registered to buy carbon credits, wished to make a purchase, we would have to put a formal motion before the Dáil. That is wildly impractical for a variety of reasons. We have already had two debates on the purchase of €20 million of targets. If one purchased €10 million this month and another €10 million or €15 million next, one would have to have a whole series of debates. Much as I enjoy debating carbon credits, it would be impractical to condemn the House to such a fate.

The convenience or amusement of the House is only one issue, and we could certainly fill many happy hours debating this subject. Second, and more importantly, however, it could cost taxpayers serious amounts of money. Just before Christmas we received a very good offer to buy €20 million of credits in an excellent scheme operated by the World Bank. The rate was very favourable, and if one must find time for a debate on each occasion when one makes a purchase, one spancels the opportunities available to the NTMA to do so cost effectively within Government policy. That is foolhardy and a very bad way to do business.

The third point is the inflexibility that would obtain if we took that route. If one had to have a Dáil debate every time a Kyoto unit were purchased, it would nullify the Bill. The legislation will fund the purchase of Kyoto units centrally, giving the NTMA the flexibility necessary to take advantage of opportunities that appear on the market from time to time. That may not appear a positive development in the eyes of the Opposition, but from the perspective of the Government and practical people, it is a good thing. It is a positive development if there is an opportunity to gain access to a fund that is advantageous in its economic cost and beneficial in its impact. It is ludicrous to introduce inflexibility in that regard.

The mechanism balances the need to give the NTMA flexibility and the Oireachtas an opportunity to scrutinise expenditure. The money comes from the Central Fund. In determining the most efficient and effective means to fund the acquisition of Kyoto units, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has held extensive consultations with the Department of Finance, which in turn consulted the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Providing annual funding through the Department's Vote was considered, but there would then have been issues regarding capital carryover if money had not been spent, with Supplementary Estimates required if the NTMA needed additional funds in any year. If the Dáil were in recess, an opportunity to acquire Kyoto units at an advantageous price would be lost unless we reconvened the House.

Providing advance funding was also considered, but it was deemed an unattractive proposition as the funds would be tied up for several years, although they might not be required. The most flexible approach to adopt is the one in the Bill. As I have outlined, there are very relevant practical reasons concerning public accounting and finance not to take the route proposed by Deputy Gilmore. The proposition is impractical and would cost taxpayers more. It is not workable, especially if the Dáil is in recess, unless one has an emergency meeting to trigger the mechanism. It is inflexible and would ultimately nullify the Bill. I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.

See this speech in context