Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak during this debate. It is unfortunate that it is taking place at this late stage in the evening, as it is unlikely to get any coverage. We are likely to be talking to each other, rather than spreading an important message about climate change. I would like to make a relatively brief comment about Copenhagen, before raising some signature issues that I believe the Minister and the Taoiseach, in particular, and the Government, in general, need to highlight as Ireland's key priorities. I suggest that we have some credibility with respect to such issues. I will also make some more general points about this country's domestic performance, the national targets we should be setting and the practical measures we can adopt in areas like transport, energy and agriculture.

It is recognised that a comprehensive and legally binding new treaty is unlikely to emerge from next week's summit in Copenhagen. While world leaders have been careful to reduce expectations over recent weeks, for good reason, it is disappointing nevertheless. There have been some positive developments over the last ten days or so. The US President, Mr. Obama, and the Chinese Premier have both made pledges and are planning to visit Copenhagen. The Minister is right to say that pledges are not enough. We know to our cost in this country that political pledges often do not mean much when circumstances change and other political priorities take over. A new legally binding deal that is similar in structure to the Kyoto Agreement is required. Such a deal should require developing countries to make a commitment to limit emissions increases. In the case of Ireland and other developed countries, significant reductions in emissions are needed. The Copenhagen target must be to finish with a very strong legal commitment on a process, a roadmap and a timescale for when the new legally binding treaty will be put in place. People are already suggesting that it might be possible to achieve that at next year's summit in Mexico.

I would like to repeat a point that I have made to the Minister on a number of occasions at meetings of the joint committee. I had some experience of this when I was in the European Parliament. When going to conferences such as this and getting involved in negotiations, as has been the case in Council meetings within the European Union, there is a tendency among small countries to become, essentially, observers or commentators when big deals are being put together. It is very important that Ireland should decide what are the key signature or niche issues we wish to push as our agenda. That should have happened before now, at Council meetings such as the one that occurred on 23 November and with regard to going to Copenhagen.

In that way, Ireland would develop a reputation for an expertise in some key areas in which we have credibility and on which we can deliver by leading by example. Targets are an example. We had an opportunity to build our credibility with regard to delivering on promises. At present our reputation is in tatters regarding the commitments we made under Kyoto. To be fair to the present Minister, Deputy Gormley, he was not there when those commitments were made and he is a relative newcomer to his current portfolio. However, even in his time the targets we set ourselves have been missed pathetically. There is a series of reasons for that on which I do not wish to waste time. We must concentrate now on building some credibility so that we can credibly say we will meet the new commitments we make.

What might help that effort significantly would be to put in place what the Minister talked about and Deputy McManus put together as a framework document, namely, legally binding legislation on a national level for our climate change aspirations. I shall mention a number of items that should be included. We need to set targets for the medium term, 2020, and the longer term, 2050. Those targets must be separate from but connected with our international obligations. We need sectoral targets within different areas. That is happening at present in a totally unco-ordinated way across Government with regard to emissions targets in different sectors, for example, transport, energy and environment. There is no clear unambiguous target-setting going on in the different sectors at present but this should be happening. It should happen by means of legislation and if the different Departments do not meet those targets there should be consequences. The Minister will find support on this side of the House. In big catch-all parties like mine, Fianna Fáil and, to a certain extent, the Labour Party, it is sometimes difficult to get agreement in areas such as agriculture, transport and so on but we will work with the Minister on this if he takes brave and responsible decisions.

Regarding the Bill, it is also very important to set up an independent commission. Deputy McManus is very strong on this and I am sure she will talk about it presently. It is important that there should be somebody separate from Government who would monitor the Minister's performance. It should not be an Opposition party person nor should this be seen as playing politics. It should be somebody who would help and have top expertise available to him or her to advise Government on what is appropriate and achievable concerning what will help an economy to grow but at the same time will reduce emissions. That same body that would be independent of Government should be able to expose freely failures in meeting targets, performance benchmarks, and so on. If necessary, Ministers need to be humbled and changed if they are not performing. Many cynics talk about the impact of a potential new climate change Bill in Ireland and ask who will fine the Government if it does not perform. We can structure this in a way that requires a political response, with significant consequences if those responses are not delivered upon.

I have not yet fully decided on one matter but the Minister's Department must think about it, namely, whether to include the emissions trading sector in the new climate change Bill or whether the Minister should decide the Government no longer has responsibility for the traded sector because now it is a European project. He may decide that because of emissions trading, the trading in carbon credits and the value of carbon that problem will sort itself out. I am not convinced that is the case. There is a growing case for including the traded sector within the targets to be made legally binding.

It would be very helpful if the Minister were to look for genuine cross-party support towards the construction of the Bill at the early drafting stage. He might be surprised by the constructive response he would get from Opposition parties if he were to do that. That does not happen very often but on an issue like climate change, when we are setting targets for the next 40 or 50 years, parties would be willing to work in a constructive way.

To return to Copenhagen, one of the areas in which we have credibility is development aid. Whether in the European Parliament, the Commission or in development aid issues generally, Ireland has credibility. We should focus on this single issue perhaps more than on any other. It concerns the separation of the funding requirement from millennium goals and aid budgets which countries are putting together, collectively in the case of the European Union, and finance that is being set aside specifically for mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and so on. The Minister will see some sleight of hand here.

I know the Minister is genuine about this issue but I would prefer if he were to say, "I am speaking on behalf of Government when I say," rather than "I think we need to have two separate revenue streams here". As Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with responsibility for climate change, Deputy Gormley must speak on behalf of the Government, and perhaps he does, but he should say that more so that he is on the record. He might drag the Cabinet in that direction too so that what is said becomes an absolute commitment, to which in two or three years' time, even if Ireland is still in the depths of recession, we will still be required to find an answer.

It would be very easy to make the popular case that we need to merge adaptation measures in parts of the continent of Africa, especially in the case of development aid budgets because it is all about helping poor people, and so on. We must nail down that issue. I accept that the Minister is personally committed to it but that is not enough because he may not be here in six or eight months or in two years' time. I want a Government commitment in writing to that so that there will be a commitment by the Taoiseach and Cabinet rather than by Deputy Gormley, as a Minister and an individual.

The Minister might correct me if I am wrong but I found it disappointing he did not raise this issue on 23 November in the Council meeting, having said he would do so at a committee meeting in response to my questions. I asked him specifically to try to get commitments on this issue because there has been a problem in getting commitments from certain European countries on this area, specifically on committing finance. That is understandable because many economies are struggling at present. Ireland needs to carve out niche issues so that people know what to expect when we come into the room. They will know this is something on which we do not compromise and on which we want to push others. That is how we will get things done. If we try to be a jack of all trades, whether in the Council or at Copenhagen, we will not get anything specific done.

I do not have much time left but I shall mention some practical measures that I would like the Minister's Department to consider. I have a lot to say with regard to the budget so I shall try to distil it. I mention forestry because the Minister also mentioned it. In the climate change strategy to which the Minister signed up to we aspired to planting 15,000 hectares of trees per year. In the Renewed Programme for Government, for which the Green Party is largely responsible, there is a commitment to planting 10,000 hectares per year. In reality, we will be lucky to plant 5,000 hectares this year. Forestry premiums are being reduced. I spoke to industry representatives from both the private sector and Coillte and they are extremely concerned about the industry's capacity, on the basis of the current supports, to increase the planting level. This must change and the Minister must achieve this as a member of the Government.

Consider the commitments made by the United Kingdom in recent weeks to afforestation between now and 2050. We have more planting space per head of population than in the United Kingdom and plenty of suitable land. We need to put a financial structure in place in the budget to ensure the aspiration to plant 10,000 hectares per year will be realised. I would like to see more hectares planted but the planting of 10,000 hectares next year would represent a good day's work.

I will finish by discussing my hobbyhorse, namely, transport. I cannot understand why the Government is not setting aggressive, proactive targets for emissions, particularly with regard to public transport. Technology provides solutions and other countries are embracing it. If the Government gave Dublin Bus a two-year timeframe in which to realise a particular target for all its fleet, it would demonstrate the way in which to meet our objectives.

The case is the same for electric transport. We are settling for half measures at present. We are talking about setting up small pilot projects in small areas in different cities. Consequently, we will never achieve the economies of scale that will make electric vehicles viable in Ireland. We must be much more ambitious, particularly in the transport sector. The transport sector, although regarded by many as the biggest problem area, has the most potential for a dramatic shift from carbon-based fuels to much more sustainable sources of power.

See this speech in context