Mr. Andrew Jackson:

I will start with the question on ranking, where the Bill stands and how we can improve it and then deal briefly with forestry. I agree that we are in the relegation zone here. We start from a low base because the 2015 Act has been described in the academic literature as "symbolic" legislation and the proof is in our emissions. Our emissions have continued to rise and we are going to be about 10% above the 1990 level by the end of this year. One can contrast that with countries that have strong framework laws like the UK which has reduced its emissions by about 40% over the same period and Scotland which has achieved a 50% reduction over the same period.

I do not get any sense of emergency from this Bill. The Dáil has declared a climate and biodiversity emergency and we can really strengthen this Bill if we give instructions to drafting lawyers to emulate international best practice to produce a Bill that reflects the emergency nature of the situation that we are in. I mentioned in my opening statement the idea of getting the advisory council to regularly review and comment on whether what we are doing represents our highest possible ambition. In the Netherlands, they are looking at the same idea but while I suggest that it should be done at least annually, in the Netherlands there are discussions around monthly reporting and feedback in response to the question of whether what the Netherlands is doing is its highest possible ambition. That is being debated in the Netherlands at the moment and that is appropriate in the context of an emergency.

The forestry question is a really interesting and good one. In terms of how to deal with potentially negative impacts on or damage to biodiversity as a result of mitigation and adaptation, I am not sure we find a great example of that within a framework climate law. Certainly in the European context those negative impacts are often dealt with by EU legislation related to biodiversity that aims to require assessment of the impact of plans and projects on biodiversity and so on.

We must consider what can be achieved in this Act and what can be achieved outside of it. I certainly see one gap. EU Directive No. 92/43/EEC, the habitats directive, and EU Directive No. 2009/147/EC, the birds directive, require thought to be given to any damage a plan or project might cause to a protected area. EU-protected areas-----