Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Linehan for the paper he submitted, as well as for his attendance to make a presentation. As for the point he raised regarding the Attorney General's advice, I raised that issue at a meeting of this joint committee. When members were informed they could not have sight of the Attorney General's advice, I asked for precisely that. When reading Mr. Linehan's submission the other evening, I noted his use of the word "gist" and I had asked that the joint committee at least be given an overview or, if not the precise information, a more broad spelling out of the reason members were not getting that advice. To be honest with Mr. Linehan, I am at a loss in this regard and I believe the joint committee is being kept in the dark on this issue.

My other major concern pertains to a considerable degree of vagueness regarding targets in the heads of the Bill. On targets, this is an absolutely key issue because unless one decides to go a certain distance on a particular day, the journey will not be completed and one will only get half-way towards the destination. In particular, in the context of how business is done here, unless matters are set out in black and white, it becomes grey with the result that nothing happens, it does not go anywhere and one find oneself being obliged to try to play catch-up. In that regard, how important does Mr. Linehan believe it to be to have five year targets as opposed to seven year targets? How important does he believe it to be to have specific targets for 2050 and not simply broad statements that will keep us in line with whatever Europe is doing?

Mr. Linehan also should expand on the legal points. Anyone present who has served on a county council will have encountered a great phrase being used continually in documents presented by county managers or the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, namely, they would "have regard to". Mr. Linehan also has raised concerns about this issue. How strongly does he believe one must ensure the Bill is absolutely clear and terms such as "having regard to" should be removed? My concern is that through such vagueness, we will experience carbon cliffs and that at different times over the next 30 or 40 years, good governments will be trying to play catch-up in the wake of governments that may not have been so good on this issue. The joint committee's previous discussion was with corporate leaders, who are in favour of having specific targets and who appear to be ahead of the Government in this regard. However, from a legal point of view, how important does Mr. Linehan consider it to be that vague terms such as "having regard to" would be removed from the Bill?