Mr. Oisín Coghlan:

The suggestion was made because it is not the word that matters nor the legally binding nature, but the transparency of the numbers and not hiding behind words that, because they have so many meanings, make being accountable for progress impossible. It is a question of setting benchmarks. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be managed.

A national objective is fine. It is not that we do not view it as strong enough or that we object to the phrasing of the objective of the Bill, which refers to an environmentally sustainable, climate resilient and low-carbon economy. These are good aims if achieved. We agree with the NESC, in that carbon neutrality is a stronger and clearer idea than low carbon. As I am asking the committee to make insertions in the Bill, the next subhead could be a definition of "low carbon" - for example, a provision that emissions should be no more than X in 2050. The word "targets" is not the be all and end all. Rather, it is a matter of measuring progress.

I will expand on the options concerning targets. One issue is setting a number. Another issue is their legal enforceability, which we are not hooked up on. A third issue is what the target is, which brings us back to the question of whether agriculture is a special case. The committee could recommend the setting of a target and suggest whether it should be legally enforceable to the courts. We do not believe it needs to be. The Bill does not need to outline what the number is, profess to have the final expertise or square all of the circles. It could have an opinion, but one option would be to follow the example set during the similar stage in the development of the UK Act. We sometimes use that legislation as a benchmark, but people did not have all of the answers at the beginning. At this stage, the UK's climate change committee was asked to use experts to draft a report on what the targets should be. The draft Act set a 60% target for 2050. The committee was asked to determine whether this was sufficient. When it reverted, it decided that 80% was a more appropriate target, given the science and what was possible in the UK. The UK Government took that advice.

One might ask how that committee could have existed if the law had not been passed. The committee was set up - the climate advisory council, as we would call it - on a non-statutory basis in advance. Not only did it do this work, but it also had its first report on how to achieve targets ready to go so that, on the day the law was passed, the committee went from shadow form to real form, published that report and hit the ground running. There are options on setting the level of targets.