Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I concur with other speakers in welcoming the legislation in so far as it attempts to be environmentally progressive. Like all legislation, however, it is not perfect.

I listened with interest to Senator Phelan's concluding remarks on the real impact of the Bill in terms of encouraging people to purchase new cars, which will be cheaper in the long term from a tax perspective. The Senator raised the interesting question of whether the concept of re-use, recycle and repair is being abandoned.

I presume the Minister will return to the House for the debate on planning and housing guidelines. It is interesting that his party is playing a role in Government on these key matters for the environment. He knows me well enough to be aware that I do not participate in political play acting. One of the stronger arguments made by Senator Boyle before the general election is that Green parties have been in government in almost every country in Europe and that the Irish Green Party could make a real impact if given a chance to govern here. He has been granted his wish of entering Government and I wish him well in that regard. However, the difference in environmental lifestyles has not been huge in other countries where Green parties have played a genuine and progressive role in government over the past 15 years and the progress on emissions has not been significant. Talk is one thing but real progress is another. Progress has been very slow on what the Minister wants to do in the areas of emissions from the motor industry and housing planning and construction.

If we want to console ourselves in regard to environmental damage, we should realise that we are a tiny blip on the scale of the world's problems and only a minor part of the solution. The big industrialised countries will have to produce the real results, so we should be realistic by calling our efforts "tokenism". Even if everyone in Ireland bought the newest, cleanest and greenest car or lived the most sustainable life possible, our global impact would be minimal. It would be the right thing for us to do but we must be realistic about the progress we can make.

There is consensus in the House that making the legislation retrospective would be welcome. I note Senator Boyle's comment that retrospective measures can work in both directions but the people who in previous years bought what they thought were the most environmentally friendly cars are now being penalised on the double because they will continue to pay a high rate of car tax and the value of their cars will be reduced when they sell them. The Minister might reconsider that issue.

The Bill makes no provision for cars fuelled by liquid petroleum gas, LPG, which is very low in emissions. In the 1970s, a significant minority of cars ran on LPG. I believe it is still possible to convert cars to LPG and several centres continue to sell this fuel. Is there any incentive on LPG? I was in Britain last week, where I noted the high price of diesel and petrol and the exceptionally low price of LPG in garages. Possibly as an environmental incentive, LPG seems to be less than half the price of other fuels. The Minister might indicate whether we are doing anything through VRT, motor tax or fuel taxes to establish LPG as a viable fuel.

I wish the Minister well with this legislation, although I hope he pays heed to the suggestions made by the Opposition on making it fairer. It is a progressive Bill and I am not being a spoilsport when I say it will not change the world's carbon footprint to a significant degree. Our greatest role will be in setting an example and leading the campaign at the UN and elsewhere to persuade the real players to make the necessary changes to their industrial emissions, which is where the problem begins and ends. I thank the Minister for listening. He might try to respond to my inquiry about LPG fuel.