Dr. Thomas Muinzer:

Senator Higgins asked an important question which raises some good points. It is good that a reflective conversation is occurring around the composition of the CCAC and how that is articulated in the legislation. A richer scientific and technological presence and input would be useful. I am trying to stick to the legislation and avoid the general cultural discussions in Ireland. The CCAC may be an important and respected body, but it is heavily oriented towards economic interests and concerns. That is partly reflected in some outputs, some aspects of its composition and some aspects of the way in which the legislation articulates its membership. That is something that could be eased up slightly, and that speaks to the theme of richly integrating science and scientific capacity.

There are broader questions concerning governance, beyond the composition in respect of individual members. If I am reading the legislation correctly, it seems the CCAC can do quite a bit, including creating subcommittees and thinking in novel ways when it comes to its own governance. It is, therefore, a substantial institution that might want to develop a science-technology committee. I do not see why it could not do that, if the resources are available and I am reading the legislation correctly. Those are all things that should be usefully considered. The CCAC is just one entity, so it will need help and support and will need to be cognisant of, and draw on, the reports of the IPCC. It may even want to enrich collaborative links with the CCC in the UK in useful ways. The sky is the limit when it comes to novel thinking in the composition and governance of the CCAC. The legislation should reflect and enable those sorts of opportunities.

Moving to the question from the Chair regarding public bodies, it would take me a little while to scan through my knowledge of international climate change texts and how they treat that question. It is a broad query and a very good one. Given that we are concluding and in light of the breadth of that very good question, it is probably more useful if I emphasise that for me the bread and butter aspect of meaningfully engaging Irish public bodies in the transition process, as articulated in the legislation, lies in nailing down robustly articulated targets, which are ideally economy-wide. I refer to tweaking and refining the 2050 objective in the proposed section 3(1), getting carbon budgets nailed down, getting them just right, making them robust and perhaps thinking of how the UK does that. It will also be necessary to articulate the governance framework that will gradually drive the national transition which will impact on public bodies and drive private transformation. As we are concluding, I highlight that broader point.

In closing, I emphasise that this sort of approach will prepare us very well for all the sorts of things coming down the track at EU level, such as the EU climate law. We have our problems, especially regarding agriculture, but if we do not step up and really grapple with them now, and preferably in this legislation, we will be placed at even more of a disadvantage as things move forward quickly in the EU context. We must prepare our agriculture sector for those changes as best we can, as well as those other shocks and impacts that are coming. This legislation is the key to doing that. I ask the committee to excuse the slightly broad answer, but I am thankful for the question.