Dr. Thomas Muinzer:

I thank the Deputy for her question. A member has pointed to the New Zealand legislation and some lessons around biodiversity and so forth that we can potentially learn. Deputy Cronin raised the question of the just transition and there is an inspiring template in Scotland that we can look to, which contains a relatively well-developed acknowledgement of the just transition. With the work in Scotland there is a kind of raised consciousness around the just transition, which the Act may partially stimulate. We have a useful template to look to in order to fill what could be an arguable blind spot in the Irish legislation.

With particular reference to sanctions, I will speak specifically to the text, as a lawyer tends to. Head 3 deals with our 2050 climate objectives and it would displace the old section 3(1) of the principal Act. It indicates, "The State shall pursue the transition to a climate resilient and climate neutral economy" so it is the tendency within the legislation. I will not necessarily say that this places a duty as it does not work in the same way as the UK Act, which is very robust. It points the duty towards the State, with the implication being it is towards the Government. The language could perhaps be more sharply developed around those points at certain stages to assert and affirm. The UK Act may provide a useful template.

When thinking of sanctions, the orientation is typically towards the Government. It would be useful to stress-test the language just to ensure that is coming through and clear. The sanctions question can be complex. In the UK experience, judicial review is available, as members know. In my writing, I have tried to think through what remedial outcomes a court might apply in the context of a particular breach of the climate change legislation in the UK. Typically, in approaching that question, I have broken duties into two different types in the Act, with the first being procedural duties. That may be the process of reporting to the parliament or something like that.

Substantive duties would classically be a 2020 or 2050 reduction target. With procedural duties, there tends to be a capacity for courts to order a report, say, if one had been missed but with substantive duties, it can be very difficult to see what courts can do meaningfully. If the net zero 2050 target was missed in the UK, that could be judicially reviewed, it is a legally binding duty, but what would the court actually do? It would probably award declaratory relief where it declares that there has been a breach of the duty. It may award costs to the party that brought the case but beyond that, it is difficult to see exactly what the court can do. A lesson for Ireland, when considering sanctions, is that part of the form that sanctions might be able to take, as well as could usefully take, lies in the courts' capacity in Ireland to undertake certain actions to issue certain orders. When considering sanctions, one must look carefully to the legal system and context in the jurisdiction in question to see what outcomes could be dictated by the courts, or perhaps even created by them because we are starting to see creative judgments around the world in this area. There might be capacity for creativity in Ireland. Sanctions, especially, are a question where there is no magic bullet or one-size-fits-all answer. Ireland will have to think independently within the context of its own legal framework and tradition.