Mr. Andrew Jackson:

I have some brief remarks regarding climate justice. Essentially, the Bill preserves the position from the 2015 Act regarding climate justice. It is an undefined principle to which regard must be had. I can illustrate how weak that phase is with reference to the proceedings in the case taken by Climate Case Ireland.

The entire defence was to point to a single reference to the words "common but differentiated responsibilities" in the 2017 plan and to say that although emissions were allowed to continue to rise, reference to those words was enough to have regard to climate justice. I would stress that if we want to - and we must - progress beyond that position, we really must define climate justice and make obligations relating to it meaningful in the Bill. One way to do that, beyond defining climate justice and imposing obligations around it, would be to put the concept from Article 4 of the Paris Agreement of progression beyond previous ambition and the highest possible ambition, into the heart of the Bill. We could, for example, have a modification possibility so that we could adjust the net zero date and the interim targets with reference to the need to progress beyond the previous position and to strive for the highest possible ambition. That would be a really powerful way of putting climate justice into the Act beyond simply defining the principle and strengthening the obligations around it.