Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We mentioned the fact that science changes and it only seems to be changing in one direction at the moment. We heard in our examination yesterday that the Scottish Act has minimum interim targets but also provides for those targets to be raised within the carbon budgets where, for example, scientific expertise suggests that they might not be achieving 1.5°C limit and the evolution of science in that regard. I know the Professor spoke to some of the other inputs and potential policy outputs, but could he indicate what scientific factors should be considered, either in terms of membership of the committee or the other scientific input? The Professor mentioned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, for example, and there are others that should be inputting into that evaluation of whether a budget is sufficient or needs to move above an interim target. That was addressed interestingly in the Scottish legislation.

Also in the Scottish legislation, Ministers who do not take on the advice of the Scottish equivalent of the advisory council are required to give reasons and a rationale to explain why they did not. Is that something useful that we should be replicating in this Bill so as to ensure that sweetness is not falling onto the desert air, or whatever it might be? If advice is coming through, should we require a rationale as to why it was not followed?

My final point will build on the points made by Deputy Bruton and others about Departments. One concern we have heard about the Bill is the lack of sanctions for Departments. We know that only 1% of a shortfall in achievement can be reflected in the next budget period. What are other appropriate sanctions for Departments or public bodies that fall short of their targets? The Professor mentioned international expertise. Could he comment more on what he sees there?