Dr. Thomas Muinzer:

The Senator raised some very good points on the New Zealand legislation. It is a good example of how we can learn in the context of the Irish experience from other legislation, perhaps by trying to cherry-pick some of the stronger components. There is an argument for building in developed recognition of biodiversity and so on in the Irish legislation. I have a concern about the contents of head 3, paragraphs (a) to (y), where there is a long list of matters that are to be taken into account over the course of proposed sections 4 to 6 functions. That is such a diverse list of features that it could, arguably, be problematic. Why would I say this from a legal perspective? It is extremely wide, which can pose legal and practical problems. It also contains a range of competing interests, so it is quite difficult to balance broad and competing interests in that way in legislation. In that regard, if we are building in elements like biodiversity and so on, one would want to be careful as to how one adds to the texture of the legislation, even if it is for the good reasons mentioned by the Senator.

I will briefly comment on this type of legislation. There can be a tendency to throw much at this type of legislation because it is dealing with a very broad and pervasive problem in climate change; it is as pervasive a legal problem as we can get as climate is all around us. Perhaps there is a tendency to want to pack this legislation with various matters but one can adequately err on the side of caution and still allow the law to function very well. We must remember we are dealing with framework legislation, and it tries to sketch a framework that will set a policy direction and form a basis for further action. The further action may be fleshed out via policy and secondary legislation and so on. We want to stress the framework element and not overpack the legislation, even if it would be for positive or good reason.

Another good question was raised but perhaps I should hand over to Mr. Church so he has adequate time to answer.