It will take me some time to go through as there are so many different amendments but I will take the first one beyond Nos. 8 and 9 which, as I said, are now moot, as an example. The proposed section 4(11) provides "A Minister... shall, in so far as practicable, perform his or her functions in a manner consistent with the most recent approved climate action plan and the most recent approved national ... climate action strategy." I do not see where the wording there weakens the provision or gives any out. A Minister…

It does not allow for people to ignore the provision, go backwards or reverse the legislative intent. Who was it who said the revolution takes place in a grinding process in the corridors of bureaucracy? One sets in place policy measures to achieve an objective. That is the reality of our constitutional democratic Republic and the administrative process. My advisers tell me that is not weak language. It is common legal understanding that one does what one can. One cannot do the impossible but it does not provide an…

To answer Senator Higgins on the alternative wording, I will give an analogy. I remember when I was doing my leaving certificate I was not the most stellar student in the class and my mother always encouraged me as I went out the door that all I could do was my best reasonable effort. I fear that if we use the phrase "best reasonable effort", it will be far weaker than the wording we have here. Ministers will always say they did all they reasonably could. How would we define or measure this? In law, the phrase "as …

I am afraid I cannot accept amendment No. 11. The wording as provided is simpler in many ways but I believe this provides better clarity, whereby greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 are balanced or exceeded, which is important, by the removal of greenhouse gases. On the exact number, we will not know. That will be an evolving issue on which the Climate Change Advisory Council will be able to assist. It is hard to predict out to 2050 how much will constitute removals, but I do not imagine it will be anything near 50%. …

One could project an estimate but I do not think any projection would be 50%. We could undertake the scientific research and provide the figure. I want to make a key point in respect of the earlier debate and the comments just made in terms of a trading system. Nothing has been specifically designed yet. There are proposals coming forward from various quarters as to how this transition could be funded, particularly in the context of land use and agriculture. We have a challenge in this country, particularly when it…

We have been working with the trade union movement and others for many years now on defining, understanding and delivering what a just transition is as we make our transition to a zero-carbon future. My sense of this over the years has been that much of it is about jobs and employment. The unions have a particular role. We believe in working with trade unions in social partnership. However, it is not only unions. It is also about the farming community and other communities. We should not be too quick to define exac…

We will obviously engage with the Opposition before coming back on Report Stage, as well as during that Stage, on this and every other amendment in an open way. We always do that. I want to come back to what Senator Pauline O'Reilly said. All the way through it, this Bill takes a just transition approach and the key thing is action that delivers on that. I listened to what everyone said and we will engage again on Report Stage. What the Senator said is true and the arguments have been well made. We have the highest…

We are gaining a fair few too. I take on board the arguments the Senators made. No one disagrees on their motives or intentions. This Bill has been crafted with a lot of consideration and we believe we have the wording right. We believe it reflects the core requirement of just transition to address those who risk losing employment or income, as well as the communities that may be affected. That is at the centre of everything we do. It is true, as Senator Pauline O'Reilly said and her amendment proposes, that commit…

I am unable to accept amendments Nos. 18, 70 and 71. The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action did an incredibly good job. As Senator Pauline O'Reilly stated, there has not been a previous example of such detailed recommendations coming from pre-legislative scrutiny. Equally, I do not believe there has been such an example of where so many of the recommendations were accepted and nor will there be for a long time. Significant swathes of proposals were accepted, which very much informs and changes this B…

The term, "nature based solutions" is defined under section 7 of the Bill that sets out to amend the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, legislation, with provisions being made so that projects will be open to apply for funding under the climate action fund. The definition is in line with and informed by the definition provided by the European Commission. The Bill was further amended, following an amendment which came from a previous Dáil debate on the climate action fund and how it operates. We have prepared that.…

I am afraid I cannot accept amendment No. 24. It would not be appropriate for us to place provisions in this Bill where every flood victim in the country, for example, could seek compensation on the back of it being a function of climate change. Similarly, it would not be appropriate for us to try to involve every other matter, such as investor-state disputes or other mechanisms. This Bill is designed for us to set up the process within which we manage the complete change of our policy system and approach to give e…

I believe the State does not have such liability and there are widespread laws that will support and back up that view. I do not believe the amendment would necessarily address all those different circumstances. We would have to have incredibly complex piece legislation to do that. The answer, therefore, is "No, I do not believe so.". On the other issue in terms of liability, one of the reasons this is contentious is that it is such a powerful Bill. It is so strong in its import because it attaches itself to - I ke…

The State is vulnerable in all aspects of its existence to judicial review and sanction. It happens all the time. I cannot protect against the variety of different judicial areas, but I do not believe, in relation to this Bill, that we can solve or determine every single protection for the State. I have not seen, having been the Minister with responsibility for the environment and energy for many years, circumstances where policies to address climate change are subject to judicial review to seek compensation.

I do not believe it is appropriate for us to try to address every international agreement, trade or otherwise. Climate will affect every aspect of our lives, not just trade but other aspects as well which could be subject to compensation or judicial review from investors or others. I do not think it is appropriate. Time and again, I have seen that some of the amendments are trying to solve other problems through this Bill. This Bill focuses on the specifics of how the State organises itself. Its primary target is h…

It is not a cross-examination.

This Bill is about system change and managing system change. Much of our legislation is modelled on the UK climate bill which has been effective. It too has used this climate advisory council and it too has used this five-year, ten-year or 15-year idea of looking forward and setting budgets and parameters within which the state acts. One of the things we want to avoid is this Bill becoming the source of intense non-stop litigation as the solution to every problem, the addressing of every issue or the resolution of …

I will not be able to accept these amendments. The reason I am focusing on Article 2 is because it sets this core objective, which is the key one, to halve the emissions in this decade, the net zero target. The core of it is trying to keep global temperatures below 1.5°. That is the appropriate focus. Within that, Article 2(2) recognises, as I referred to earlier, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Article 4 sets out the basic key mechanisms for achieving these sorts of reductions. First, …

As I said, as we are signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate and the UNFCCC, we go for the highest ambition. This is particularly the case in respect of the 2050 target. I was reflecting on an earlier discussion we had on the 2030 deadline as to why you would go further. The whole Bill is within the objective and the strategy of reaching net zero by 2050, which is a very significant ambition. Therefore, in any actions that you would be taking in the immediate decade, you have to read the Bill in its entirety …

Again, I cannot accept the amendment. The Bill provides under each relevant section that the climate plans and strategies prepared under the Act will be published as soon as possible following adoption. The original 2015 Act also provides the Climate Change Advisory Council will publish its annual report within the required timeframe, no later than 30 days after having submitted it to the Minister. A three-day timeframe would not be workable. We would run into all sorts of difficulties around translation into Irish…

The climate action plan process will, in a variety of different ways, embody and encompass just transition principles, starting with what we have already been engaged in with regard to its extensive public consultation which will continue on an ongoing basis. That is, as was discussed earlier, one of the characteristics of just transition. It has to come to Government for decision and approval. Government decision-making is also conditioned by a variety of different requirements for us to assess social and other co…