I move amendment No. 22: In page 14, line 23, to delete “44D,”.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 14, line 25, to delete “44J”.

I move amendment No. 24: In page 14, line 25, to delete “44X”.

I move amendment No. 25: In page 14, line 26, after “may” to insert “, subject to consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications,”.

I move amendment No. 26: In page 14, line 27, to delete “44D,”.

I move amendment No. 27: In page 14, line 28, to delete “44J”.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 14, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(3) In making regulations or orders made under this section in respect of— (a) rates of renewable transport fuel obligation, (b) advanced biofuel obligation, (c) crop cap, (d) high ILUC-risk biofuel, or (e) renewable transport fuel standards, the Minister shall consult with— (i) the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, (ii) the Environmental Protection Agency, (iii) the National Standards Authority of Irelan…

I move amendment No. 29: In page 14, line 34, after “the” where it secondly occurs to insert “Minister, the”.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 16, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(c) a disclosure of the greenhouse gas emissions, in tonnes, caused by its activities within the State for which the company is responsible, and the measures already taken and planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during future reporting periods.”. This seeks to require that, under the new section 69: (3) For the purposes of the register, each oil company shall, within one month of a request in that behalf by the Minister a…

Any emergency Bill needs to exist within the context of the climate emergency. High-profile figures in the oil industry have spoken about their bumper years and infinite future. Once there are emergencies that cause demand, they will be happy to go forever. They are looking at brand new oil fields around the world even though we know we need to keep oil in the ground. In any emergency, we should look to the calculation and intersection of multiple risks. It is appropriate that information be available when we are c…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 11, line 36, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”. Section 3 grants wide powers to the Minister to make regulations on any other matter referred to in this Act. It is quite substantial. Regulations on any matter was referred to and there are all kinds of things referred to in the Act. Given how wide those powers are, it is appropriate that there is some form of a check and balance in respect of that. That is why I am suggesting changing the line that states that “The Minister may c…

We will come to that. Given there is an attempt to create checks and balances and suitable scrutiny of proposed regulations in certain aspects of the Bill, that seems to be undercut by this general provision under section 3, which says that the Minister can make any regulations about any aspect at all. Why do we have certain sections where the Minister makes regulations and he or she has to check them against various bodies and have transparency around them, and then have a different provision which simply says tha…

The problem is that section 3 does not say that there are certain areas in which the Minister will just make regulations. Section 3 refers to regulations on any matter referred to in this Act. As the Minister of State rightly pointed out, there are different requirements and I will come to them in one of my later amendments. There are specific and different requirements on certain aspects of the regulations around cybersecurity. They are different and there are different processes around the regulations that are se…

If that was the case it would not refer to any matter referred to in this Act, it would say certain matters, but it says "any matter". We disagree so that is fine as I can press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(5) The Minister shall, subject to subsection (7) , before making regulations under subsection (1) , publish a draft of the proposed regulations on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications and allow a period of 30 days beginning on the day on which the draft is published during which persons may make written representations to the Minister in relation to the proposed regulati…

First, I make the point that we have an expectation, whenever a very wide provision is put in, of how it might be used. Expectations are effectively meaningless unless we either clarify how it will be used or we acknowledge that we have left something wide open. I do not see that it might not be used on the same matters because it specifies a "matter referred to in this Act". Perhaps these will be regulations in respect of the management of risk that will bypass the process under section 6, for example. If there is…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 21, line 7, to delete “shall” where it firstly occurs and substitute “may”. These sections of the Bill are a matter of serious concern. I am surprised they have not got more attention. We are usually very careful of anything potentially seen as interfering with the separation of powers and the due course of our courts. Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 relate to section 18. That section basically says a decision of the High Court would be final and "no appeal shall lie from the decision of the …

The language suggested by the Law Reform Commission, as outlined by the Minister of State, is different from the language used in the Bill. General public importance is very different from exceptional public importance. Exceptional public importance is, by its nature, exceptional, so that it must be shown to be different from other issues of public importance. The interests of justice is an important point because the Law Reform Commission is recognising that individual access to justice component which stands and …

I move amendment No. 8: In page 21, lines 8 to 11, to delete all words from and including “in” in line 8 down to and including line 11 and substitute “in cases where the High Court certifies that such an appeal would constitute a risk to national security or public safety.”.

I move amendment No. 9. In page 21, lines 9 and 10, to delete “its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that”.