I speak on behalf of Sinn Féin to support the amendment tabled by the Civil Engagement Group. The chapters of CETA that relate to investor courts will impact on every aspect of public policy and severely hinder the power of a progressive government and this Government to make significant changes to people's lives. This is no less true in terms of how we tackle climate change and implement this Bill. Investor-state disputes, as mentioned by Senator Higgins, are already having a chilling effect on governments looking…

I move amendment No. 33: In page 9, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(2A) The Climate Action Plan must also, with reference to the just transition principles— (a) explain how the proposals and policies set out in the plan are expected to affect different sectors, households, communities, and regions, including how they are expected to affect employment in those sectors, communities, and regions, and (b) set out the Ministers’ proposals and policies for supporting the workforce, employers and commu…

I am disappointed the Minister will not accept either of these amendments. I know we have had a long discussion. I was here for it. I did not weigh in at the time, but it is outrageous the Bill does not contain a definition already. The original Bill also lacked a single mention of just transition. The version we have now mentions it but does not define what it actually is. I urge the Minister to accept both these amendments.

I move amendment No. 34: In page 9, line 33, to delete “, in the Minister’s opinion,”. We believe this wording is a get-out clause and nothing more. Professor John Sweeney from Maynooth University said that this Bill is peppered with weasel words and this is a particularly good example of that. The part of the Bill that this amendment seeks to change reads: (3) The roadmap of actions referred to in subsection (2)(b) shall— (a) specify measures that, in the Minister’s opinion, will be required for the first budget p…

Yes. I would have been delighted if the Minister had at least accepted amendment No. 36, which was an alternative, rather than our own proposal to delete "in the Minister's opinion". I do think that is going to happen so I will press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 36: In page 9, line 36, to delete ", in the Minister's opinion,".

I move amendment No. 38: In page 9, line 38, to delete ", in the Minister's opinion,".

I move amendment No. 7: In page 5, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(6A) Any decision of a local authority to initiate a process to extend the duration of a development plan under this section or section 11D(1), shall require an associated resolution of the members of the planning authority in respect of such an extension in accordance with subsection (2), and such an extension shall not have effect, until the obligations under subsections (2) to (10) of section 11D have been addressed, and subsec…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 5, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(6A) Notwithstanding anything in this section, or in section 11D, a planning authority shall not extend the duration of the development plan more than twice, and for no more than an accumulated period of one year.”. This is to stop incrementally extending and thus trying to avoid triggering a strategic environmental assessment and an appropriate assessment. It is to make explicit that the absolute maximum extension is one year in …

I move amendment No. 9: In page 5, line 28, to delete "1 January 2024" and substitute "1 January 2022". These amendments seek to pull back the period over which the provisions allowing for an extension of a county development plan is permitted to be effected. There is no justification for allowing multiple extensions out to 1 January 2024. Such extensions will operate not only to provide for potential disconnects with other county development plans, the national planning framework, regional guidelines, spatial stra…

I move amendment No. 12: In page 6, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following: “(a) a screening determination is made to determine the requirement to carry out a strategic environmental assessment and an appropriate assessment, in relation to the development plan as extended by any period of extension proposed by the planning authority under section 9A or 11D, (b) such determination is published and made available as part of the consultation notified on the proposed extension under subsection(4), and (c) …

I move amendment No. 16: In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(2A) (a) In deciding whether to pursue any and all extensions of the duration of the development plan, the elected members and the chief executive of the planning authority shall undertake an assessment to support the obligation to have regard to the matters specified under section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, and any targets or plans which may be specified under that Act relevant for the planning a…

Yes, I am.

I move amendment No. 18: In page 6, line 28, to delete “4 weeks” and substitute “8 weeks”. These simple amendments are self-explanatory. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 propose to amend “4 weeks” to “8 weeks” in section 3(4)(b) and (c), respectively, and amendment No. 20 proposes to amend “8 weeks” to “12 weeks” in section 3(5)(a). I await the Minister of State’s response and I hope he can accept these amendments.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 6, line 33, to delete “4 weeks” and substitute “8 weeks”.

I move amendment No. 20: In page 6, line 36, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.

I move amendment No. 32: In page 7, to delete lines 21 to 25 and substitute the following: “(7) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in considering whether or not the development plan with the proposed extension of the duration would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, a planning authority shall carry out a screening for appropriate assessment in accordance with section 177U.”. This is a simple amendment to ensure that the …

I move amendment No. 34: In page 7, line 23, to delete “have a significant effect on a European site” and substitute the following: “be likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects”.

I move amendment No. 35: In page 7, to delete lines 26 to 29 and substitute the following: “(8) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), where necessary, a planning authority shall carry out an appropriate assessment in respect of the existing development plan as extended by the proposed extension of its duration in accordance with Part XAB.”. This amendment again aims to ensure that the planning authority would carry out an appropriate assessment in respect of the existing development plan.

I move amendment No. 38: In page 7, to delete lines 33 to 39 and substitute the following: “(b) The members of the authority, having considered the proposed extension of the duration of the existing development plan and the chief executive’s report may determine the need to make variations to the development plan to accommodate only the essential changes required consequent on mitigation identified and required by the Appropriate Assessment or by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report performed…