Dr. Roderick O'Gorman:

When the Deputy initially spoke about targets, he used the term "bind", a really tricky word. How binding are the targets? I see targets as something to aim at and achieve. One should look at how the various elements in the legislation are meant to operate. There is a national roadmap, as well as sectoral roadmaps. In addition, there is an annual review, a periodic review, the transitional statement, obligations on public bodies and the power to make regulations. All of these feed into head 4(1), which sets out the low-carbon goal.

The mechanisms for having a low-carbon economy and to review progress include the roadmap, regulations and the expert body's review mechanisms. I fail to see how the initial plan can be made if we do not know what the target is. I also fail to see how the expert body can review progress towards the achievement of a low-carbon economy if there is not some set figure that proves we are or are not on the way or are close to achieving it.

I accept that there is a figure for 2020, but I argue that we should have figures for 2030 and 2050 also. We should not leave it until the introduction of the EU targets, although I accept that they will come, but we do not know when. There is public consultation on the 2030 target. The European Commission is talking about bringing forward its draft proposal by the end of the year, but it could be a number of years before the 2030 target is reached. It is notionally a 40% cut. The 2050 target could be a considerable length of time away.

My concern is that the framework set out, which is reasonably good, cannot operate properly. It cannot show us the direction to get to this low-carbon economy if it does not know the end result. It means that in the medium term the whole framework will be operating blindly.

That covers the issue of targets. Does the committee wish me to respond to the constitutionality of the targets set?