Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their testimony, for highlighting various aspects of the Bill and for their own experiences. The debate has been very interesting. By this point many of the questions have been asked so forgive me for any repetition.

I was taken with the point in the opening statements about the need to tighten up the language in the Bill. Both witnesses spoke about that in some detail. In terms of the differences between what is being proposed here and what the UK has done given its experience in climate action for nearly 12 years, what are the main differences between what is being proposed here and the witnesses' lived experiences of what the UK has introduced?

Mr. Church spoke about the indications of the carbon budget not being met and it was only two years away. What sanctions are built into that Act? What implications will it have for the UK Government if those targets are not met?

In his opening statement, Dr. Muinzer spoke about the UK Act and its performance and involvement. We heard about the need to tighten up the language in the Bill before us, the commitments in that Bill, its impact on future Governments and the sanctions it could bring. Deputy Sherlock asked about the role of local councils. That is an important element when one is speaking about the impact it will have on local authorities. Regarding the advisory committee about which both witnesses spoke, what kind of make-up should it have? Would it have members from youth and community groups? I think both witnesses spoke about the Dutch and Scottish models. Could they delve into the advisory councils in the Netherlands and Scotland and how they possibly differ from each other or which has the better make-up? Mr. Church spoke about public participation in the Netherlands as an example of best practice. Was that on a continuous basis or was it at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage?