Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I do not depend on lobbyists. They might give me an interest in something but I do not depend on what I get from them.

The Bill is welcome but minimalist. It does not deal with the issues. I regret the Bill was not introduced in this House, as I would have made a number of amendments to it with which I believe the Minister would be in agreement.

In regard to section 8, the Minister said, "I intend that the purchase of Kyoto units by the National Treasury Management Agency will be guided by the following principles..." and so on. If I thought there was a chance of it being accepted, I would table an amendment to include that section of the Minister's speech to a relevant section of the Bill. That is necessary. There is a gap in the Bill in that respect and that part of the Minister's speech should be included in it.

I note the Minister's reference to the Kyoto units, which I consider is also minimalist. I am amazed that the Parliamentary Counsel did not develop that aspect further. To my certain knowledge, there are four kinds of Kyoto units. The better known ones are the certified emission reductions, CERs, the emission reduction units for the sink units that would be put in place, and the European Union allowances.

I criticised the budget in terms of the money being put aside for this area, as it is the only action being taken. In reply to a point raised by Senator Brady, I say that purely on the basis that it was not being balanced with other aspects. If the Minister said to me that he intended to introduce legislation in this area, I would advise him it should deal with the following measures and the Minister might indicate with which ones he disagrees. It should provide that from now on every local authority will have no choice but to charge for waste on the basis of per unit, per volume, per weight or per lift, rather than the position that still prevails in some county councils which charge householders for the year and allow people to put out barrowfuls of waste every weekend. Why could that not be done? Why would we not insist that every new house being built would have triple glazing and solar panels, which has been included in new houses in two areas of Spain? In moving forward matters, why would we not insist that old fashioned light bulbs would be phased out and banned within 18 months? None of those measures would cost money or pose a charge on the Exchequer. It could be argued that they might add a minor cost to the price of houses but it would not add 1% to the price of them. Why could that not be done? I would love to be in the Minister's position for one week and I would put in place four or five of those measures and I would not hear of any arguments being made against them. No lobbyist approached me to convince me of that; that is my view.

I will take the Minister further in terms of why I support this Bill. I decided in January that my election campaign would be carbon neutral. As Padraig Flynn, one of the Minister's predecessors, said long ago, "You should try it some time". He should try to be carbon neutral, get his emissions audited, obtain an authorised certificate to indicate it is balanced and be able to prove that. It cannot be done. At what price does the Minister think one CER is currently running? I checked it in January when a carbon credit, 1 metric tonne of carbon, was €25. If the Minister multiplies that figure by whatever number of million he mentioned in his speech, he will find that the sum works out at €450 million.