Dr. Thomas Muinzer:

I thank the Deputy for her very good question. The book I mentioned presents analysis of climate change Acts and some deep-dive analysis of particular states, including Ireland. That analysis is provided by Dr. Andrew Jackson, who I understand has appeared before this committee. It is an erudite and excellent analysis. The book as a whole draws lessons based on the current condition of knowledge and practice in the area of climate change Acts. We are thinking about just the sort of Act we are dealing with today - national framework climate legislation and national level framework legislation such as this.

The Deputy asked about specific major identifiable components which are considered largely best practice to include within climate change Acts. I am sure it will come as no surprise that the two major thematic components which are identified are a substantial focus on mitigation and a substantial focus on adaptation. Those two major thematic components may initially sound reasonably obvious. An Act like Sweden's climate change Act, in essence, ignores adaptation. There are reasons it was argued it was appropriate to do that. It was felt in Sweden to some extent that adaptation was catered to under other extant frameworks. At any rate, in principle we have two major thematic components that must be dealt with in an adequate way: mitigation and adaptation. Of course, the Irish legislation engages robustly with both features.

In terms of more granular components, targets are considered key. One could have a conversation around the form and nature of targets. We might think most obviously of a fairly stringent emissions reduction target for 2050 like that found in section 1 of the UK Act, which refers to a net zero target. However, New Zealand's legislation, for example, includes emissions reduction targeting but uses a split target approach where one is distinguishing methane with a split target. It also incorporates a 1.5°C temperature rise target that is pegged to the Paris Agreement which indicates how when we think about targets we may also think in terms of temperature. There is, therefore, a range of ways in which one can approach targeting but targets and carbon budgets are considered a leading-edge best practice granular component. The Irish amendment Bill includes those. I will argue they are included in a soft form that should be examined and, frankly, tightened but that component is represented.

Long-term planning procedures are considered to be another major component. They feature in our Bill in terms of our strategic framework and so forth. The creation of an independent climate committee is another component. We have our advisory council, which is being adjusted and augmented under the Bill. There is probably a discussion to be had on that but that type of committee of these leading edge frameworks is very much a major thematic component. The adoption of robust mitigation and adaptation plans is another core granular component. One could argue that is reasonably well developed in Irish legislation. Public participation and engagement is another component. There may need to be a conversation about the extent to which the Irish Bill caters to that in an adequate way. That is a relative blind spot in the UK Climate Change Act, which has virtually nothing to say about public participation and engagement. That is not the case in the Scottish Act, which has relatively well-developed features. Other components are monitoring and reporting procedures, sanctioning mechanisms, which we have touched on, the need for a conversation as to the form those sorts of mechanisms might take, and institutional transparency. A conversation may have to be had around that in respect of the Irish Bill in which there seems to be a reasonably robust presence of institutional transparency. There may be some problematic elements there also.

Those are the core components identified from the research. Some can be pegged explicitly to our amendment Bill. We might need to have a conversation on others as to whether they are sufficiently robust. Others are arguably not meaningfully present. Perhaps I am being a little harsh but the public engagement element may not be meaningfully present in our amendment Bill depending on one's view. I thank the Deputy for the question.