Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I welcome that, when enacted, it will be the first item of climate legislation ever to be put in place in Ireland, which is a very positive development. Notwithstanding the comments made by some during the debate thus far, the Bill is but a first step and that must be acknowledged.

It goes without saying that we have a responsibility to take action now, especially to protect and preserve the environment for future generations. It is certainly positive that the Bill provides a statutory basis for the national objective of pursuing the transition to a low-carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by the year 2050. In recent weeks and months I have been contacted by many constituents in respect of their concerns with this Bill. A number of them posed some fair and reasonable questions and I intend to raise these during my contribution.

I welcome the fact that the State will be committed to meeting both its EU and international climate change commitments under the provisions contained within the Bill. While we are currently subject to legally binding mitigation targets up to 2020 - I understand negotiations are ongoing in respect of targets up until 2030 - the question must be asked as to why no explicit mitigation targets are contained in the Bill. The Department's position appears to be that setting targets within the Bill could at some stage interfere with the legally binding targets set by EU legislation. Perhaps the Minister will indicate why he believes this to be the case.

The national climate policy position was approved by the Government in April of last year. The Department's position is that the Bill will provide statutory underpinning for that position but this will not really negate the need for explicit targets to be set by this Bill given that the policy position is just that, a policy position, and is not legislation. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the positive aims upon which it is based. These aims include an aggregate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 80% by 2050 across the electricity generation, built environment and transport sectors and, in parallel, an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production. Given that this is the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill, I am obliged to ask whether it would not be reasonable to include a definition within its provisions of what constitutes "low carbon"? The inclusion of such a definition could provide extra clarity and contextualisation to the provisions and aims of this legislation. A further concern, which has just been outlined by the previous speaker and which has been brought to my attention on numerous occasions, relates to why the Bill does not explicitly state that the expert advisory council will be fully independent. Will the Minister indicate why this is the case? Surely it would be beneficial to enshrine the independence of the expert advisory council in the legislation and state, beyond any doubt, that it will be wholly independent of Government in carrying out its duties.

I welcome the whole-of-government approach set down in the Bill and outlined by the Minister. This approach is an essential component of any strategy to reduce emissions. Placing a requirement on the Ministers, under whose remit the largest emitting sectors fall, to prepare mitigation policy measures for inclusion within the successive national mitigation plans will ensure that tackling climate change is not a battle being fought by a single Minister or Department. This will allow for a co-ordinated approach to be implemented across numerous policy areas and will provide Ireland with a greater chance of success in terms of ensuring that we meet our goals in reducing emission levels.

The provisions in this Bill require the Minister to make a national mitigation plan at least once every five years and to submit this to Government for approval. This plan will specify the measures to be adopted by relevant Ministers especially to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Providing for the development of successive plans is important as we simply cannot adequately foresee how many of the large emitting sectors will develop in future. To adopt anything other than a dynamic approach, which allows for adjustments, would be irresponsible. I am pleased that a national adaptation framework will also be developed by the Minister and submitted to Government for approval. This framework will be renewable at least once every five years and it is important in terms of laying out the national strategy to reduce the susceptibility of the State to the adverse impacts which climate change would have at both local and national level.

A national and transition mitigation plan is required to be developed by the Minister "no later than 24 months after the passing of this Act". In light of the importance of taking action to tackle climate change, should the development of this plan not take place in a more appropriate timeframe? I raise this issue because there are EU targets which we are obliged to meet by 2020 but under this provision, the national mitigation plan may not actually be in place until 2017. I do not believe this provides the State with sufficient time in which to take action. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the rationale for not explicitly mentioning and incorporating the principle of climate justice within this Bill. I concur with those Opposition Members who raised this matter.

I am aware that it has taken a great deal of time to get the Bill to the floor of the House. In that context, I commend the Minister and his Department on the work they have done in respect of it. If the Bill is enacted, the State will finally have its first item of specific climate change legislation in place. That will make Ireland one of the few EU member states to have such legislation. While I am supportive of the Bill, I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide further clarity on the concerns which many people have brought to my attention and which I have sought to raise here.

I wish to comment further on the whole-of-government approach. Each Minister and his or her Department will be responsible for the delivery of this approach. While I welcome the steps that have been taken within the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in recent years, not just during the lifetime of this Dáil but also during the lifetime of the preceding one, I am concerned about public transport and its sustainability. The population of the northside of Dublin is approximately 600,000 but the area is only served by one real mass transit system, namely, the northern commuter line, which includes the DART. We have been waiting for proposals to be brought forward in respect of metro north, which is envisioned as serving the airport and the areas beyond it. The Dublin west area, which is part of Fingal, is host to both the fastest-growing community in Ireland and the fastest-growing part of a community in Europe, but it is not served by a mass transit system. Rather, it is served by bus routes. The services on some of these routes are intermittent and the routes themselves are affected by bottlenecks.

While steps have been taken to mitigate the position, the fact remains that approximately 600,000 people in this city only have two ways to travel to and from work, namely, by public transport - the bus - or by private car. We have failed miserably in the context of providing park-and-ride facilities throughout the country. When they are provided, we charge exorbitant prices for them and this drives people back onto the roads into their cars. If I can travel by car to Dublin city centre from Balbriggan in 45 or 50 minutes at peak times and if it takes 50 minutes to do so by train - taking into account the delays that can affect the northern commuter line, it could be longer - where is the incentive to use public transport? This matter must be addressed and not just in the context of the Bill before us. The Government and those which succeed it must ensure that public transport providers meet the emissions targets set for them in the policies that will be rolled out in the future. I met representatives from Dublin Bus a few months ago and they indicated that while the company's fuel bill has increased by 80% in the past ten years or so, its level of consumption has decreased as a result of the use of more environmentally friendly vehicles. This represents a job well done. The same cannot be said of our rail service providers, however, although I accept that there are new engines within the fleet which obviously use less fuel.

However, as the network gets larger and demand increases, their consumption will clearly increase.

I have referred to two areas concerning public transport, but I could talk about road haulage and the need for Ireland, as a partner in the European Union, to try to push for lower emissions in the road haulage industry. That industry is obviously of key importance in this country since it is an island.

I wish to discuss the issue of car culture. Right across this House, we are lauding car sales figures. We believe the increase is great because it is obviously good for the economy as there are more VAT receipts. People with money in their pockets are able to spend it and are not afraid of doing so, yet every time a car is sold there is an impact on our carbon dioxide emissions. It is difficult for the Government, therefore, to respond adequately in climate change legislation and to the targets set at EU level. There are a number of factors we must consider. I welcome the Bill and look forward to the rest of the debate, particularly Committee Stage.

See this speech in context