Dr. Thomas Muinzer:

With regard to the ex officiomembers I will stick to the four corners of the legislation to make a general point. When one looks at the composition of the Irish advisory council and the input of ex officiomembers and how voting works, we can see why things might be structured this way. It does contrast with the UK's Committee on Climate Change. The ex officioinput, while there may be lucid and positive reasons for it, does not create quite the same level of optics of independence that we find with the UK's Committee on Climate Change, when these types of features are read in conjunction with the advisory council. It is not fair to say it is nested within the EPA but it is interactive with the EPA in terms of how the legislation structures certain arrangements. I am speaking about the legislation on the page. When we read it we have an independent advisory committee but we have these other features that are interwoven. In the UK version we have an independent Committee on Climate Change. The legislation ring-fencing this in an independent zone creates two slightly different impressions. There are slightly different features at play.

The UK's Committee on Climate Change, CCC, is the advisory and reporting body, as we know, just like the advisory committee. Its functions are fairly similar. In the UK it has been a relatively respected institution, is considered to be fairly robustly independent and it provides useful advisory support. On specifics of the advisory committee, again I am thinking of the four corners of the legislation. I am sure in practice it would be different, but it did not jump out at me as to how it would have a broad access to a wide sweep of data, for example, or an automatic entitlement to data that might allow it to produce long-term climate modelling and so on. The CCC's doors are quite open with regard to its access to data, for example. How the legislation compares and contrasts is something that might be looked at.

There are one or two points within the legislation where certain elements slightly troubled me around the advisory committee in terms of the legislation structures. I will go through it but I will be brief as I do not want to take all the time. A small example is section 6B that deals with the approval process for carbon budgets. The advisory committee would recommend a carbon budget level and the Minister can amend that and finalise it at section 6B(1)(c) to (d). If the Minister departs from the advisory committee's advice, which the Minister can do, it has to account for that departure under the legislation. From what I see in the legislation, the next step is that matters are then moved to the Government, which can then approve or modify the budget level under section 6B(6)(a) to (b). I did not see clearly there that the Government would be required to account for a departure from the advisory committee's proposed carbon budget. So, in practice, the advisory committee could propose a budget, perhaps the environment Minister might accept that, and as it moves to the next stage the Government may modify that. I did not see the same requirement for the Government to account for a departure from the advisory committee's budget level. I am aware that the Oireachtas is involved then and so on. On that narrow point, however, in the UK procedure in legislation, if there is a departure from a CCC recommendation it quite clearly has to be accounted for. There are a few little such areas within the legislation that I find slightly concerning with regard to the narrower functions. I will pass on to Mr. Church, as appropriate, because I do not want to use all the time. I thank the Deputy for the questions.