Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputies Lahart, Ó Cuív, Flaherty and Chambers.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the discussion on the annual national transition statement, which includes an overview of climate change mitigation and adaption policy measures adopted to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. This is only a policy statement as enunciated in the introduction to the actual report. It is not about implementation. The entire report is only fluff and puff. It would be far better if the legislation required a report on activities specifically, rather than an annual policy statement. This House is great at annual policy statements but not half as good at ensuring that they are actually implemented.

I want to deal with two topics only. The main gap in this report is that there is no significant reference to the carbon tax collected in 2019 or any previous year. One would almost think the Government was starting to embark on the road to collect carbon tax. The Revenue Commissioners have confirmed that in 2018, some €441 million in carbon tax was collected. I am putting on my hat as a former Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts where we had detailed discussions on this exact topic with the ESRI, the Revenue Commissioners and other experts.

They told us that in 2019 Revenue were expecting to collect approximately €500 million in carbon tax. There is no reference to that in this report, to where this money came from, or to where it was spent and utilised. This report is fundamentally flawed. I am far more concerned about the serious issues that are not in the report rather than what is actually printed in this lovely policy statement.

Over the past five years more than €2 billion has been collected in carbon tax from Irish taxpayers. There is no reference to where this was spent. There was never an accounting system or a system of reporting to the Oireachtas as to where that €2 billion was spent. I acknowledge that as a result of pressure from Fianna Fáil, in the most recent budget for 2020, where an extra €90 million is going to be collected, the allocation of this money is to be given in the report with reference to the transition fund. There is no mention of the other €500 million that is and has always been collected. The Minister has been collecting over the years a great deal of money in carbon tax on petrol, diesel, marked gas oil, kerosene - home heating oil - natural gas and solid fuels, but without any specifics as to where this has actually been spent and used to meet the objectives of this legislation. This report is therefore fundamentally flawed and is only huff and puff as far as I am concerned.

I will discuss now the EU emissions trading system, which is actually referred to in this report. Reading the short paragraph which defines the EU emissions trading system, it states that the EU trading system is:

The EU Emissions Trading System ... is the main cornerstone of the EU’s policy to combat climate change and operates on the "cap and trade" principle, where a cap is set on the total amount of emissions that can be emitted by installations beyond which allowances must be purchased. This cap is reduced over time, incentivising a reduction in emissions.

It goes on to say that there are 103 such facilities licensed in Ireland under this legislation. These include the main power generation facilities, major construction projects, utilities, hospitals, and other major emitters of carbon. This is very interesting and a little bit of not giving the full picture. Again it is a case of what the Minister did not say. He gave credit to us for reducing our carbon emissions in 2019 in the energy sector. That is because Moneypoint was closed. He can claim no credit because the facility was out of action, and yet we are using it as a reason to say we were brilliant last year. What the Minister did not say, and I am saying it, because it is a fact, and I am putting it on the public record, is that the carbon that was not emitted from Moneypoint last year can be carried forward by the ESB to overproduce carbon emissions next year and can be offset against future emissions. The company also has the option of selling it on the international EU trading system. There is a lot of hocus-pocus going on here when it comes to meeting actual targets.

Essentially, when it comes to the emissions trading system, there are 103 facilities in Ireland and thousands across Europe that have a cap on what they can produce and that must purchase these emission credits if they go over the cap, and we are saying to the biggest 103 polluters in the country that they can pollute all they like, and if they go over their limits, they can purchase carbon credits from another country as their way of buying out their carbon reduction obligations. This is a simple statement of fact and is what we are not hearing today.

There is only one organisation that I do want to compliment under the partnership bit on this and that is the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which is the competent authority to ensure compliance. I am pleased to see that in 2018 - again we got this information at the Committee of Public Accounts - that St James’s Hospital was fined €210,000 for breaching its emissions targets and because it had not purchased carbon credits at European level. Vodafone was also fined €51,000. I do know that Vodafone paid up its money, and we were told at the Committee of Public Accounts that a payment plan was in place for St James’s Hospital. I am sure that has been done.

I am far more interested in seeing a report from the Minister in future, and this would be essential for any new Government, that lays out and explains to the Dáil and to the public where the €600 million that will be collected in carbon tax this year will go. The report before us only focused on the €19 million because we forced the Minister to do it, and the big picture is totally outside it. I want fewer fluffy policy statements and more specific reports on these issues in future.

See this speech in context