Mr. Conor Linehan:

I will take these questions in turn. On the access to the Attorney General's advice, I have not concerned myself, for the reasons I explained, with access to that beyond the general observation that what is taking place here this morning is part of the same process as what led to the Attorney General's advice being sought in this regard in the first place, namely, the legislative process from start to finish.

I am not a constitutional law expert or expert on the law on Cabinet confidentiality. If there are such experts to address the committee, perhaps the point could be raised with them. With regard to periodic targets or budgets, as distinct from one long-term target, I am examining targets from the legal perspective and determining whether there are legal or constitutional impediments to their featuring in primary legislation. I take the view that there are not. Perhaps it is a political issue but I would have believed the old adage, "If you do not know where you are going, you will never get there", certainly applies. A budgetary and periodic structure is a useful review mechanism. It ties into the legal issue in the sense that I have outlined. The solution to all of this in the United Kingdom is that the Secretary of State explains in the Parliament at the end of a budgetary period why the Government is off track and the proposals to address that. That is the legislative remedy.

With regard to vague language, I would hesitate to criticise excessively expressions such as "having regard to". The case of McEvoy and Smith v. Meath County Council was a case that drew attention to what the question of "having regard to" means in any legislation. In that case, the High Court said it does not mean one should follow what one is meant to have regard to but take it into consideration. Therefore, one must ask whether the term is meaningless. It is not meaningless because one must assume the decision maker will have regard to the phenomenon in question. There is a certain amount of trust involved. Ultimately, under the heads of the Bill, the Minister must have regard to the sectoral plans when carrying out statutory functions and remits. While it is important that regard be had to a matter, democratic accountability means there must be a decision maker. One really cannot have someone making a decision for the Minister at every hand's turn. The Minister is the person with whom the buck stops and the expression "having regard to" tries to achieve that balance.

The one piece of vague language that I believe is unhelpful in the heads concerns what is called the "transition objective". I believe it is a defined term. The title of head 4 refers to a low carbon future and it expresses a transition objective. It is described as transition to a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy in the period up to and including 2050. It is stated that to pursue and achieve that objective, the Government is required to provide for the adoption of the national and sectoral plans. That is really the objective. It is objectionable language to appear in a primary Act. The courts would not be happy with that, nor will the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel be happy with that in due course. It is a question of what it means. I am trying to confine my remarks to the legal issues as much as possible. Certainly, in the absence of the target and the acknowledged controversy over whether there should be domestic targets, this is the compromise. A low carbon, climate resilient economy is referred to rather than a reduction of 75%, 80% or 95%, for example, by 2050. Lawyers are not used to seeing this type of fudgy language in legislation and it is not helpful.