I will conclude and then we can go to the votes. I note it is precisely because this Bill covers the period to 2050 that I urge the Minister to consider that the language on "highest possible ambition and progression" should be included. While he may well have set his limits on his ambition for 2030 already, in the years 2030 to 2035, 2035 to 2040 and so forth, ideally we should be looking at a scenario where we would be aiming higher and even achieving this by 2045, because, and it is important to note this and I …

That is my less-preferred amendment.

My apologies, Acting Chairperson. I agree with Senator O'Reilly in that my preference is that we would just reference Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement rather than trying to pull that language out of the agreement, but I was just trying to narrow this down to the particular piece I had in mind. I agree that amendment No. 29 would be stronger and I would prefer that amendment.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 8, line 26, to delete "in Articles 2 and 4(1) of" and substitute "and commitments made in".

I move amendment No. 29: In page 8, line 26, to delete “(1)”. I will withdraw this amendment and bring it back on Report Stage because it merits consideration. I hope it can be examined.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 8, line 31, to delete “Agency.” and substitute the following: “Agency, and (c) that is consistent with the State’s highest possible ambition and progression.”. In recognition of Senator O'Reilly's point and given the hope I still hold out for amendment No. 29, I will withdraw amendment No. 30.

I move amendment No. 31: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Proactive dissemination of information 6. Notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this Act, the Advisory Council, any Minister of the Government, the Government or a Local Authority shall be obliged to publish in full within 3 days any report, or proposal which is required to be provided under this Act particularly where it is subject to approval or amendment under this Act.”. Amendment No. 31 relates to information. We know there …

To be honest, three days is quite narrow when I look to it. Nonetheless, 30 days is a little bit too wide. We could look to improve the transparency and information on this and the timelines so they work better. I accept the three-day issue is considerable. While I will press this amendment now, I reserve the right to try to come back with a compromise period, somewhere in between three and 30 days.

I move amendment No. 32: In page 9, to delete line 25 and substitute “completely decarbonised economy,”.

This is one of those caveat phrases that feels a little too like a loophole. It is already implied that the Minister's opinion is in play because it is the Minister who is taking the actions in question. We do not need to say "in the Minister’s opinion" because if the Minister is setting out the roadmap, he or she is giving an opinion because he or she is the one proposing it. Putting "in the Minister’s opinion" into the Bill creates a caveat that the actions do not have to be based on clear evidence or proposals. …

With respect, this is not happening in a void. There is a Government and then there is the Parliament. There is the Executive and there is the Legislature. As the Legislature, one of our political responsibilities is to try to ensure the best possible legislation and the greatest transparency and accountability in that. In speaking about transparency, I do not understand, given the Minister's eagerness to have discretion and accountability for Ministers, the reason he does not accept my amendments that would requir…

The concern still stands that the context of the specific roadmap and specific measures only relate to the Minister and not the Minister and the Government. I am not the proposer of the first amendment.

I move amendment No. 35: In page 9, line 33, to delete "in the Minister's opinion" and substitute "in an opinion set out and published by the Minister".

I move amendment No. 37: In page 9, line 36, to delete "in the Minister's opinion" and substitute "in an opinion set out and published by the Minister".

I move amendment No. 39: In page 9, line 38, to delete "in the Minister's opinion" and substitute "in an opinion set out and published by the Minister".

I would like a lot more clarification from the Minister of State in respect of these amendments. I have a number of amendments, to which I will come later, around strengthening the provisions that are currently in section 11D. Given that so many of the amendments refer to section 11D, I am quite concerned about whether this implies that the consideration of the factors within section 11D is diminished because those factors include some of the most crucial considerations in respect of any extension, including the co…

To clarify, this section of the Bill, which provides for the proposed new section 9A, refers to "Modification to operation of section 9". I see that the proposed new section 11D refers back to section 9. Section 9A refers to section 11D. Section 11D(2) provides that "Before making a decision under subsection (9), the planning authority shall be satisfied that ... the effect of the proposed extension of the duration of the existing development plan for the area is not likely to have significant effects on the enviro…

I would reserve the right to challenge it on Report Stage but we will not have the opportunity, unfortunately. I would want to have had clarity on exactly how these provisions will unfold. Perhaps we will get to hear that at a later stage.

I strongly agree with the importance of local authorities and their members and the fact that they should have more power and more reserved functions. I also very much agree that they should be supported to get independent legal and planning advice. In that sense, I am very happy to support amendment No. 6, which clarifies that it is the members of the local authority making a key decision. However, I strongly oppose amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of lowering the threshold. This is not the normal run of affairs…

It is a delay, and the delay may well be justified in order to produce a good plan. However, it is a delay. To be clear, there is a difference in the date on which a new plan will start. It is an extension at a point at which we face multiple crises. We face the Covid-19 crisis, but we also face other crises, such as climate, for example. In that context, this has been brought through as something that is needed, because of an exceptional circumstance. It should be treated in that context as having to meet very hig…