Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Today's debate has been most informative. In fact, some of my preconceptions have been challenged through the course of the discussion.

The delegates referred in their submission to legally binding targets. I agree that there must be such an element. After all, legislation which is not robust is meaningless. It is one of the reasons I favoured the automatic inclusion of our commitments under international agreements, as set out in head 3. This will ensure the 2020 target and what is negotiated in 2015 will have a legislative basis, which will enable everybody to see the direction in which we are moving. The example of the IBRC was given. Agreement in that regard was negotiated and subsequently transposed into Irish legislation. There is also the constitutional argument which I can appreciate, that inclusion of the targets will mean that they cannot be challenged by international agreements.

We have the 2020 target and will also arrive, through negotiation, at a target for 2030, another for 2050 and so on. I am in favour of a strong independent committee overseeing action on climate change. The Fiscal Advisory Council model is a good one; the notion that a recommendation is given to the Minister and must be published within ten days, etc. We should be using that type of language in the Bill. The Minister would then respond to the recommendation, indicating, where he or she did not propose to implement it, why that decision was being made. This will ensure transparency and clarity on whether we are moving in the right direction. I am a little concerned, however, by the delegates' proposal that we should aim for a higher reduction target of 80% to 95%. We have already discussed the possibility that we may initially see emissions rising before subsequently beginning to fall drastically. Will the delegates comment on this?

An issue that has jumped out at me from the submission is that the target of a 20% reduction by 2020 is based on the 2005 baseline. The delegates, however, are talking about a 20% reduction below the 1990 level. Taking into account the current economic climate, how do they see us achieving an even more onerous target for 2020? We must be realistic and seek to devise targets we can actually achieve. As it is, we are not on target for 2020. It will take a great deal of work for the Government and the next one to hit the target for which we have already signed up, but the delegates are recommending it be increased by referring to the 1990 figure rather than the one from 2005. What effect do they see for the broader economy in striving to meet that more onerous target? Have they taken account of the potential shock?