Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

People have spoken about the language. Has consideration been given or could it be given to separating out some of these things we hear about in the long list? I worry there might be an implied equivalence, for example, the stronger language Senator O'Reilly and others mentioned that might be attached to the specific points in terms of our obligations and whether it is appropriate we have the same regard to language applied to things which have differential weighting in terms of law.

I wish to clarify what Mr. Carroll mentioned around European Union law. I understand there is nothing to stop us from setting a target of 55%, which would be equivalent to the current target, as a minimum for 2030. If we put those hard targets we must achieve into a separate section and then look to the other factors we should have regard to, again, it is what we must do versus how we do it. Of, course, there is space for discussion on how we do it.

I mentioned there is a legal lack of clarity in that there is one point where only paragraphs (a)to (d)are mentioned. In subsection 4 on page 11, Mr. Carroll says that paragraphs (a)to (d)are relevant for the producing of functions of 6B and 6D. Is it only these which are relevant? Is this where he is trying to make a demarcation in terms of what is more important? I would appreciate if he could give even a written answer in terms of how he sees the rest of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCC, the rest of the Paris Agreement and the rest of the sustainable development goals, SDGs, being involved because they are not in the Bill. It is pretty concrete.

In terms of public participation, has it been explicitly proofed in terms of the Aarhus Convention and ensuring compatibility with the Aarhus Convention?

Lastly, in Mr. Carroll's opinion, is a target set in legislation or a target set in a plan legally stronger?