Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Coghlan said targets could be stated in a variety of ways but I assume he still believes the targets should be stated. He then raised the question of these being more political than legal. This is where we run into the difficulty with the Attorney General's advice. There is possibly a fear that this could end up in the courts if the targets were stated. That is why we need to have legal certainty.

In the absence of this advice we are blindfolded in trying to frame a report, with or without recommendations, because it could be easily dismissed. How should the legislation differentiate between what is a political target and a legal target?

Many speakers have mentioned the Department of the Taoiseach. I completely agree that there must be a national roadmap before sectoral plans are put in place. Mr. Coghlan has made a number of recommendations on the institutional arrangements, including having an office of climate change and the Department of the Taoiseach having overall responsibility. Is there a clear line of sight between the various bodies involved? If so, who does what, how often and when?

Mr. Coghlan used the phrase "have regard to". I am quite critical of having such loose language in the heads of the Bill. I would prefer to see a phrase such as "in compliance with". Does Mr. Coghlan think this would be too firm or does he believe the phrase "have regard to" will deliver?