These amendments are tabled following reflection and further legal advice from the Attorney General's office and others in regard to the two amendments from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Senators, in particular Senator Paul Daly, that were agreed on Committee Stage. The amendments seek to ensure that we have the ability to account for removals and emissions reductions on sinks, and to give the Government and the Minister the powers to be able to regulate in that regard, in particular in respect of the evolving accounti…

Senator Higgins asked a valid question on amendment No. 23, which proposes the insertion of a new subsection (5B): The Government may make regulations to specify the base year in relation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for budget periods after 31 December 2030. This amendment has been introduced to recognise that the current Bill embodies the programme for Government commitment to halve emissions from 2018, which was the first year to which the commitment in question could refer, in the decade to 31 D…

At the outset, I should state that I accept both the bona fides and the thrust of what the Opposition is looking to do. I accept it has come together on that. The argument is not that there are so many different definitions and so on. I will continue with the process we agreed on Committee Stage, which is to revert back to what we did in the 2015 Bill and not to provide this more specific definition. I come back to the argument I have made repeatedly. The strength and core of this legislation is in the adherence to…

I agree very much with Senator Higgins that it is in the detail that a just transition must be delivered with regard to jobs. I still say that these must be better jobs. However, it is not just about jobs. It is also about communities and whole sectors. It is about planning and looking to see where we will have difficulties so that we can start preparing in advance. It is also about social dialogue and addressing regional imbalances. It is about preparing our country for the future and changing the economy as well …

Throughout this whole process, over several years, Government and Opposition have worked together, at joint committees and in the drafting and pre-legislative processes, and the Bill has been transformed through listening and accepting a large number of different changes. This included the insertion of a definition of "just transition", which was not, as mentioned earlier, in the original Bill. We agreed to include it in the Bill in the place that it is most appropriate and where it can have real effect. Having lis…

The issue of the definition of sustainable development goes back to the Brundtland report and the principle that we will not compromise the interests of those in the future with what we deliver today. The sustainable development goals within that have been hugely significant. With regard to the Rio agreement, the Johannesburg agreement and New York in 2015, they were taken as an overarching manifesto for the future, which is what they are. They are a guide in everything we are doing. We do not need to define that h…

The Bill states in various sections that we have to take into account public health, employment and social objectives and so there is integration. It sets out the requirement for a climate plan, which is the centre of what we are doing, and for a climate strategy to have a social, health and economic perspective. It is in those provisions the approach that is set out within the sustainable development goals is recognised and that is the appropriate place to have it.

I can give the Senator a complete reassurance that her issue with the baseline relates only to how it is worded. It is intended as something that will be considered after 31 December 2030. The 2018 baseline would become less relevant in that context because we would have met it. That is the reason I have brought the-----

A future government may examine the matter and set a baseline to help to guide the Climate Change Advisory Council, but that would be after the fact. There will not be any weakening or watering down. The overall objective is still the same - it has to be net zero by 2050. This measure will give future governments the ability, should they want to do so, to set further baseline targets in addressing those third, fourth, fifth and sixth five-year periods. That is the intention of the amendment. I am afraid I cannot ac…

It will not be the market deciding this; it will be a land use strategy within the programme for Government. The key commitment here relates to a review of land use with a view to then setting out a policy that optimises rural development, storage of carbon, protection of biodiversity, an improvement in water quality and a reduction in ammonia and nitrogen pollution. That then frames any emissions trading scheme or other trading system. We need investment in forestry, in managing grasslands, particularly wetlands, …

I cannot accept the amendment. I read the judgment, which was very interesting. As I recall, the issue regarding the role of the Government was not presented as one of the main arguments in the appellant's original presentation. The judge drew it out in his judgment. The judgment relates to the 2015 Act, which is being fundamentally changed and altered by this Bill. As Senator Higgins has referred to, the proposed new section 3(3) says that "The Minister and the Government shall carry out their respective functions…

The amendment was introduced, as it states, for "the avoidance of doubt" because it was never intended or expected that we would, in a sense, set up a justiciability whereby in the case of an individual action, such as an investment decision having been made for a power plan or transport project, the remedy would be financial liability in respect of that act. The provision is fully justiciable. It has strength and the Supreme Court judgment of last summer copper-fastens it. There is compellability on the Government…

Article 4(1) of the Paris Agreement is specific in terms of its key objective. There are 19 subset articles within that but the key point in this is peaking of global emissions as soon as possible, recognising it will take longer for developing country parties, and undertaking rapid reductions thereafter. It aims to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks ... on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty". Going bac…

Senator Pauline O'Reilly is correct. In the structure of the Bill and various sections throughout, the Aarhus Convention is respected in the consultation and in the reference to debate and discussion. It has been specifically designed to be in compliance with the Aarhus Convention. I agree that rather than having to list every convention that we have to comply with, be it the sustainable development goals, the Aarhus Convention or others, it is in the actual structure of the Bill that the provisions are best reflec…

If we get to 51%, we will still be on a path towards net zero, although we will still have a long way to go. Therefore, it will be up to whoever is in government in ten years' time. The way it will evolve is that five-year budgets will continue to be developed one after the other. As one expires, another one will be put in place. We will have a better idea of where we are in the process. I do not see any Government looking to hold back, as that would not make any sense because we will only be halfway there at the 5…

While I understand the case for further ambition, we also need flexibility in carrying over or bringing forward emissions targets when they are not being achieved. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

I cannot accept the amendment. Section 12 requires the Climate Change Advisory Council to prepare its annual report each year, providing a review of progress made. The Bill broadens the list of matters that can be contained in that annual report. It can also include a review of compliance with the carbon budget and with each sectoral emissions ceiling for the period covered and provide recommendations that the council considers necessary to comply with the sectoral emissions ceilings. As these are already provided …

I recognise the concern and the case made by Senator Higgins. I tend to agree to accepting amendment No. 34, which provides certain reassurance in that regard in that a member of the committee, even if they are not a member of the climate advisory council, is required to provide the same declaration of interests and so on. I hope that addresses the Senator's concerns. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 32 or 33 but I hope that in accepting amendment No. 34, I reflect her valid issue.

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. While I understand the motivation behind it, the mechanisms for the allocation of funding from the climate action fund are set out in section 37B(9) of the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007, as amended. These have already been amended by this Bill to include funding for community-led initiatives on biodiversity. The funding calls will all be in line with the Government's climate and energy policy strategies. It would not be appropriate to amend those in the way set out…

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendments. To respond to the questions and concerns, this did not come from any provision of the Energy Charter Treaty. It has not impacted in any way on the Government's decision making regarding the ending of new oil or gas exploration licences. The Senator is correct that many of these developments come from the political sphere, such as the ban on fracking or the restriction on State investment in fossil fuels. I recall my party publishing a Bill, on the same day that Deputy Brí…