I will speak to the question of climate justice. We discussed the issue on Committee Stage. With respect to my colleagues, who spoke of a situation that is not of our creation, it is of our creation. Anthropogenic climate change is driven by human activity, predominately in developed and wealthier countries, including Ireland. We have a huge responsibility in that regard. When we talk about that situation, climate justice is about acknowledging the responsibility that we hold. There is a common but differentiated r…

I regret that the Minister is not accepting amendment No. 4. I know there are other things that will be done and I will come back to them later, but I want to first return to the question of injustice in the context of this amending legislation on climate action. Recognition of the injustice is core in terms of the action that we need to take. We need to understand, recognise and make as visible as possible our recognition of the injustice. It is sometimes hard to put together the terrible stories we see every week…

That is the level of injustice. I mentioned The Lancet . We know that in rich countries, unless they refocus and frame themselves within justice, the forces of injustice are strong. We wanted this amendment accepted to strengthen the Minister's hand. The Minister mentioned the UNFCCC. I am glad it exists and that the Minister acknowledges its connection. Let us be clear, the Minister quoted extensively from Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In the new section 3(3) on the climate objective …

I second the amendment.

I must unfortunately disagree with the idea that no party in this Oireachtas does not want workers' rights centre stage. The fact is Ireland is one of very few countries that are seeking to dilute or oppose new directives on workers' rights at European level. Specifically, Ireland is one of the countries that are effectively blocking the introduction of collective bargaining rights and seeking to do so. It is important to be clear: the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Varadkar, is opposing the …

I move amendment No. 7: In page 7, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ ‘just transition’ means bringing together workers and their trade unions, communities, employers and public representatives in social dialogue to develop, agree and drive the plans, policies and investments needed for a fast and fair transition to a low carbon economy and includes; the creation of sustainable employment and replacement jobs of equal quality based on the principles of decent work, the establishment of appropriate so…

When we were in early discussions about the Bill, I spoke to an environmental group in Galway. We were discussing the Bill, what needed to be changed or fixed and what areas could be strengthened. When I told the group the SDGs were not mentioned in the Bill, they were shocked, even though they are really supportive of the general thrust of the legislation. I was focusing on other matters and I said, foolishly perhaps, that I imagined it was an issue that would be addressed. I said that there would be other areas w…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 7, line 25, after "State" to insert "in a manner consistent with current international carbon reporting practice".

This amendment seeks to ensure that within the Bill the approach taken in regard to removals would be in a manner consistent with current international carbon reporting practice. This arises in the context of the elevated focus on removals signalled by the Government's acceptance of amendments on Committee Stage and the Report Stage amendments brought forward by the Government which place a stronger emphasis on removals. How that is done will be important, as will be how much that is done. My concern, which the Min…

I am speaking of the period 2030 to 2050.

I am concerned by the unwillingness to set a ceiling or limits in terms of the removals. I am concerned about the loss of emissions from our soil, forestry and peatlands. Urgent action is required in that regard. There is a need to ensure payment. I recognise that farmers are on the front line. They have key work that needs to be rewarded. The Minister said the benefit comes to the State in terms of the reduction of emissions. That should be recognised by the State because it is the sequestering and reductions in e…

I have two remaining amendments that deal with the issue of liability from a particular perspective. I have removed around ten to 15 amendments that I would have tabled individually because of this very elegant amendment that has been put by Senators Bacik and Moynihan. It deals with the same issue. The Minister will be aware that his Department was involved in a case in the High Court this year. It was not a past iteration of his Department or the Government. This Government and the Minister's Department successfu…

I move amendment No. 11: In page 7, to delete lines 32 to 38.

Amendment No. 11 removes the language in respect of limitation of liability. I had a very lengthy discussion on this issue with the Minister, which I do not think was satisfactory, but we probably do not need to go over it all again. This clause was added to the Bill after scrutiny and pre-legislative scrutiny. If our last discussion was about closing a loophole in the previous Bill, this opens a new loophole in the new Bill. It is a provision that would remove the potential to access remedy or redress by way of da…

It is a one-way clause that provides protection from failures to comply with any provision, while there is nothing in respect of protection from damages or compensation for successful compliance with any provision of the Bill or obligations or duties created thereunder. It is a one-way clause that refers simply to envisaging or imagining failure. It is not clear how far that limitation on liability cascades. Does it cascade to the sectoral mitigation measures and failure to comply with them or with the national mit…

I move amendment No. 12: In page 7, lines 36 and 37, to delete “, of whatever kind,”.

Can I move amendments Nos. 13 and 14?

They were discussed together but they can still be moved.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 8, line 26, to delete “(1)”.

Earlier the Minister quoted from Article 3 of the UNFCCC and I pointed out that in section 3(3), the only specific reference was to Article 2, not to Article 3. Similarly, there is a reference to Articles 2 and 4(1) of the Paris Agreement. Why not all of Article 4? This is a simple amendment to ensure all of Article 4 be given the same consideration and be part of the important section 3(3), which deals with being consistent with the named articles in the performance of functions.