Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. From his perspective, the primary purpose of this Bill is the establishment of the climate action fund. Like everyone else, we welcome the establishment of a climate action fund. However, there is much within that and during the debate in the other House, much of the focus was on what it might fund and the scope and parameters the Minister effectively gives himself in its operation. Some very constructive amendments were tabled which thought in an imaginative way about how that fund might be used and it is regrettable that the Minister did not feel able to accept them. That is important because we will see a lot of legislation moving rapidly and there is no reason not to accept an amendment during the early Stages of a Bill. It would not have added any further time or debate because the Bill as amended would simply have come to us. It would not necessarily have added any time if constructive amendments had been accepted. That is important because we are going to be getting proposals and if this is a collective challenge on climate change, all Ministers, not just Deputy Eamon Ryan, need to be able to take positive proposals whenever and from wherever they arise.

I will not focus much on the content of what the fund might fund, with one small exception. The Minister spoke about what we hope will be a just transition for sectors of the economy impacted by the actions that need to be taken. However, this should be about sections of the economy and society because we are not simply an economy, but a society as well. Even rural Ireland is not simply an economy or a number of business actors. It is a society. Measures taken through the climate action fund may also serve to sustain societies that are impacted, not necessarily solely focusing through the lens of the economy. It is incredibly important but the economy is only part of the picture.

With due respect to Senator McGahon, I heard alarm bells when he noted that, without this fund, the money would not be available for all these necessary things. Let us be clear; these things are not a wish list. This fund is not a bonus or a prize. These are the essential things we have to do. The climate action fund may have a purpose but these things are necessary. I would like the Minister to put on the record the fact that the climate action fund is not the limit of our ambition when it comes to spending, expenditure and all the projects we are taking forward. In his speech, the Minister spoke about large infrastructural projects. Such projects, which are needed in respect of climate action and biodiversity, must come from every part of our budget. They should not be limited to those selected through competition for the climate action fund. The climate action fund has an important role in identifying cutting-edge new projects, interesting ways of thinking, getting different sectors on board and delivering just transition. Those are important things that it can contribute to but it cannot be the limit of our ambition. I ask the Minister to give us a wider sense of where the climate action fund fits into the financial and fiscal ambition on climate action within this Government. For example, perhaps he could address the European Investment Bank, EIB, fund that went through yesterday. That fund does not contain the hundreds of millions of euro that the climate action fund might, but billions of euro. One of the European investment fund's stated main objectives is climate mitigation and adaptation.How will the Minister ensure that the main objective, which sits within that fund, is reflected in how Ireland engages with the fund?

Regarding the EU recovery fund, which is yet to be finalised and to come before this House, it may include up to €500 billion in grants for countries across Europe. How will we ensure that climate action, biodiversity action and all those elements are reflected in that initiative? This conversation is not simply about our budget. It is part of a European conversation now and Ireland has a leading voice in that context in respect of the beneficiaries, the focus, the priorities and the policy-thinking regarding the funding we are putting towards Europe's recovery. I would like if the Minister could reflect on those aspects and where the fund fits into that wider fiscal picture.

The Bill is not only about the climate action fund. It also concerns an opening up of the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007 and much has changed since 2007. The Act was then primarily focused on energy security, but now we know we are facing a climate crisis as well. There is a need to level-up and this is an opportunity to improve the legislation so that it reflects the reality.

I will give a simple example. I suggest that it might be useful to have someone with expertise in climate science on the board of the National Oil Reserve Agency. While we are buying oil and other reserves, therefore, there would be someone who acknowledges how that fits in a broader perspective. I refer to there being consistency regarding Ireland having an emergency supply, which it must have, but that we also think about divestment and reflect in our international conversations a balance of divesting while having this reserve. We should also think about a sustainable energy reserve for the future. I refer to sustainable energy storage, battery power and other technologies. It is often suggested that there is tension between sustainable energy and energy security, but this is the chance to tackle this issue by having a sustainable energy reserve and making sustainable energy part of our back-up plan as a State.

I turn now to the clean-up costs. As my amendment in this area has been ruled out of order, I am going to highlight it and the Minister might then address it. It is a serious concern as companies are leaving the oil and gas sector that they are leaving massive costs behind for the public. Analysis by Rystad Energy has estimated that 250 oil and gas companies might go broke in America before the end of the year. Just one of them could cost $40 million for a clean-up operation. Another company gave $15 million in cash bonuses to its executives and then filed for bankruptcy six days later. That is why I am suggesting we might need a further levy on the capital and other assets of oil companies to ensure that they are preparing us for the cost of their exit from the oil and gas sector and that they are contributing, not on disposal, day-to-day costs or what customers are paying, but on those assets so that we are prepared for the outcome. In the end, it will often be the State that will end up doing much of the clean-up in this area.

I also want to highlight the question of capital assets. When we look at that issue, how do we ensure that we do an audit of the existing oil and gas infrastructure in the State? How can we ensure that the Minister can be informed and have the relevant figures and information that he needs? I tried to give those powers to the Minister in my amendments to the legislation. I will be able to press forward with some of those, but not with others.

I would also like the Minister to address how this levy will be reviewed, because this is a changing landscape. We have seen that oil and gas companies are collapsing and we know that Brexit is around the corner, so this is a shifting landscape. Regarding the 2% levy, Deputy Naughten made some constructive suggestions on giving the Minister the power to move to a 3% levy, for example. I am also trying to give the Minister the power to extend the areas from which the levy might draw. Will the Minister tell us how he will be monitoring that aspect and will there be a plan to open this legislation again? That seems unlikely, so that is why I am trying to get all these powers into the hands of the Minister now.