Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is an important debate on timely legislation. It is only right and proper that we should have a full discussion on all the issues involved. I note the comments by Opposition Members that the Oireachtas committee's report, as well as the views of outside groups, on this Bill should be fully and properly debated. However, a question lies at the heart of the Opposition's point of view, and particularly that of the previous speaker. If we do away with all fossil fuels, what will we put in their place? We must have some form of energy.

Wind energy was proposed for this country and the idea was that, as it comes from the most disparate and distant parts, we would have to build a new energy network to carry that energy to our towns and cities. Following that proposal, there was uproar throughout the country even though wind energy is not created from fossil fuels. Thousands of people attended public meetings to protest at the infrastructure that was required.

The question therefore is what choices we have to make as a society. There must be a quid pro quobecause if we are not using fossil fuels, we will have to use other forms of energy. If we are bringing that alternative energy from distant parts, while creating lots of jobs on the way and meeting the needs of communities that would not otherwise have the infrastructure, what choices do we have to make? If we want alternative energy we must have an acceptable alternative infrastructure in some shape or form. I am not talking about the height of pylons or other technical issues; I am talking about the principle. If we want to fight climate change, we must accept a compromise on where and how we live. Those compromises include accepting wind power, alternative energy structures and agreeing as a society that that is the way forward, if that is where we want to go.

One of the key necessities is to change our thinking on transport because how we travel is a big issue. Our transport sector is a major polluter in terms of fossil fuels, but we are already changing the way we think about it. The ESB, in particular, is active in putting energy points throughout the country for electric cars, but who is buying such vehicles? Not many people have them. If we want to use alternative forms of energy and transport, we should use that infrastructure which is being placed throughout the country.

There are incentives for using electric cars, but we need to increase such incentives to make it much more attractive for people to use them, especially in urban areas. We need to change the way we think in that respect. We should walk or cycle to work if we can, as well as using public transport. We need to change the way we live in many respects.

I do not agree with previous speakers who said that Ireland is doing nothing and that nothing has changed. A lot has changed, including planning and construction regulations. The SEAI promotes the warmer homes scheme, which is essentially a way of getting people to reduce their energy bills and other costs, thus making it more attractive to use alternative energy.

We still face great challenges in trying to change public behaviour. I have met concerned groups, and will meet them again as the Bill progresses through the Oireachtas. Many people are committed to reducing pollution from the use of fossil fuels. The involvement of young people and families demonstrates an energy and enthusiasm in this regard. We need to carry the message because everybody must step up to the mark on this issue.

Some years ago, when Dublin City Council reduced the speed limit for cars travelling through the city centre to the equivalent of about 20 mph, there was uproar throughout the city. It was said that we were interfering with the privilege of motorists to travel through streets they did not need to travel through, particular if the proper transport infrastructure is in place. There was uproar over that proposal, which I supported, and I received a lot of calls from people who opposed the plan. It is difficult to stand up to pressure groups when one supports environmental change, lower speed limits and pedestrianisation.

I welcome the recent decision by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to spend about €2 million on installing proper signage for reducing speed limits in urban areas. In addition, we have seen major developments with cycle paths. Every Deputy in the House wants a new cycle lane in his or her constituency. It is what people want and that is the direction to take. It is incorrect to state that local authorities are not centrally involved. Those planning authorities construct houses and control much of our environment. However, I would like to see them becoming more involved because there is a lot more to be done.

Research, science and technology will change as time goes on. In his speech, the Minister said that if our targets are less than those fixed by Europe, we will be subject to their regulation and will have missed the boat. If they are higher, however, then our economy will not be competitive. We will have to tease out that fundamental point on Committee Stage.

I also wish to comment on the criticisms of the expert advisory council. There is no reason the Environmental Protection Agency should not be involved in that council. I cannot think of a more fundamental upholder of environmental legislation than the EPA, or one that is more impermeable to political influence. I welcome having that agency at the heart of our expert advisory council. It would be silly not have the EPA involved because it defines our legislation and is ethical in every single respect.

The SEAI also carries the flag for change, including more sustainable ways of living. It does not make sense to omit the Economic and Social Research Institute from the expert advisory council. The ESRI is not part of the political establishment and is not subject to ministerial or Government diktats. I would welcome the ESRI's involvement in the council. In addition, there are between eight and ten ordinary members of this advisory council, so the majority of its members will not be part of the State apparatus. They will be independent and separate from the political system. On Committee Stage we could perhaps look at other nominees for that council. We could consult some of the interested groups on who they consider should or should not be on the council. The advisory council will be independent, informed and practical, which is the way this country has to go.

Research and science will change how things happen in the future. However, one matter we are all monitoring daily is our energy costs. People have large energy bills to pay in the aftermath of the cold winter and what they require for the future is certainty with regard to, and if possible reductions in, prices. They also want sustainable energy, which in my view represents the way forward. The Bill before the House will be of assistance in improving our access to better and more sustainable energy. I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context