Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Having held the ministerial brief, I know Professor Sweeney has made a major contribution in this area. I agree with much of what he says and there is potential to strengthen this Bill.

Professor Sweeney favours putting annual targets into the Bill and cites the Scottish example. The approach in the Bill, as I understand it, is that two carbon budgets will be set and there shall be no facility for changing those. It creates a rigid constraint. On the other hand, the Scottish legislation allows Ministers, by regulation, to change those annual targets. It seems these are two different approaches, with one having annual targets but allowing Ministers to change them, with the other having a five-year budget but not allowing change other than in the event of scientific evidence changing. Is it necessarily true that the Scottish model is better than the other?

It strikes me that the easy part of this is writing down that we will hit this or that number. The hard part is changing the way communities work. Essentially, we have seen addiction to fossil fuels, but will changing that addiction by sanction, which seems to underline some of the views, be effective in ultimately getting homes, farms and other businesses to change?

Another aspect is litigation. I see that in New Zealand they have provided for litigation and put a limit on the process. One cannot seek remedy but one can seek a declaration. Is that the sort of litigation environment we should seek to create in a Bill of this nature?