Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This legislation is being advanced in a different way from the normal way and the committee has been asked to consider the heads first. Many of us feel very frustrated that we are largely doing so blindfolded. One Attorney General clearly gave one set of advices while another gave the opposite. We can presume that is the case because the last Government had a climate change Bill that contained targets while the current one does not. It is quite difficult to square the circle.

To what extent has there been successful litigation against other countries that have had targets? Is Mr. Linehan aware of any court action demonstrating a valid reason not to include targets?

On the point on the vagueness of the language and the McEvoy and Smith v. Meath County Council case, changes to the framing of development plans changed behaviour. Would Mr. Linehan accept that the language in the Bill is not only included to provide legal certainty but also that legal certainty, in turn, changes the approach? I felt there was a dramatic difference in how people approached the zoning of land when the operative legislative phrase was "be consistent with" rather than "having regard to". The legal relationship between sectoral and national roadmaps is vague. How might the Bill be improved to ensure the sectoral roadmaps are in compliance with the carbon budget specified in the national roadmap?