Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome the Bill. It is something for which campaigners of all ages have been waiting for many years and we are excited to see things moving forward. In being very positive about the Bill, it is also important that we temper what we say with a suitably sombre and humble note in recognising where Ireland is right now. As of last year, Ireland was the last of 15 EU countries on the environmental and climate aspects of the sustainable and development goals, which are not mentioned in the Bill, unfortunately.

With respect to my colleague who spoke earlier, it is important to recognise when we look at global emissions that China is well above the average per capita at 7.38 tonnes per person but Ireland is at 8.32 tonnes per person, which is more per capita. To put this in perspective, Malawi, which is a country I visited in 2008 with Trócaire to see the devastating impact climate change was already having then, a decade ago, has 0.11 tonnes per person versus 8.32 tonnes per person in Ireland. It is important, in response to the idea that we are small and cannot make a difference, to state we have a huge responsibility and relevance and we certainly need to do more.

It is also important to emphasise there is no status quo. For those who wonder about taking action and how fast we should take it, there is no status quo. We are facing a climate crisis where the situation is worsening. The ground is literally disappearing beneath the feet of people around the world. There is not an option to not do things. There is not an option to go slowly and keep what we like about how things are now because how things are now will change. Our only question is whether we take positive action to ensure we shape how things change and make sure they change in a way that is equitable, that is environmentally sustainable and that can actually lead to a decent quality of life for people throughout the world. This is the choice. The choice is not one of inaction or staying the same.

Ireland is very late to starting the transition needed but the fact we are late does not give us any excuse to lower our ambition. We need greater ambition and we need to move faster. This is why we cannot afford to have any more delays, loopholes or caveats that could stop us taking the action we need.

As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, I was glad to engage with experts who contributed extraordinary insight and important information, and to engage in the very long process of pre-legislative scrutiny addressing many of the crucial issues in the Bill. However, let us be very clear. Pre-legislative scrutiny is not a substitute for legislative scrutiny. It is there as an enhancement of our democratic process and not as a substitute for it. It is now, in the legislative process, that we need to fine tune the Bill so that it works. At present, the Bill lacks accountability, legal clarity and justice.The good news is that many of the changes that would address these concerns are small changes in the text of the Bill that could and I hope will be made on Committee and Report Stages in the Seanad. I will be looking to the Minister to address these issues with us and make the necessary changes that ensure this Bill is fit for purpose. That is what is owed to all climate activists across the world and the people of the world.

On accountability, there is a concern in respect of the language which the Department used in a recent High Court case to argue that the Government was not a "relevant body" and did not have responsibilities. The language used in the 2015 Bill is still in this Bill, in section 15, specifically in relation to the duties of relevant bodies. The Government of Ireland is not listed in the section. I know the Government is mentioned in sections 3 and 5 but those references are simply to such duties as the Government has having regard to the UN climate targets. However, if the Government is not mentioned as a relevant body in section 15, I worry we will continue with a legal ambiguity that a future Government could exploit in a legal case, as this Government is doing. I hope we can address that issue and we must address it.

The Minister spoke repeatedly about complying but throughout this Bill compliance is often subject to the caveat, "so far as practicable". That phrase is wide open to interpretation and to dilution of action. In McEvoy v. Meath County Council, the court found that "have regard to" is not a form of language which creates legal obligations. It still features in many areas of this Bill. The Minister and I disagree on the number of recommendations made by the climate change committee that were taken on board and the extent to which they were taken on board. To be clear, the committee's recommendation on the interim targets was not taken on board because the committee looked for a target in the Bill for the Government, in line with Scottish legislation. Crucially, it was to be a minimum target. Concerns about the target, as suggested, have been raised by Dr. Andrew Jackson and others, including Climate Case Ireland. I am sure we will discuss them at length on Committee Stage. I am still not entirely satisfied with the language that came through in the Dáil from the Government. A crucial point for me is that this is not a minimum target. Why are we tying the hands of the next Government, in terms of increasing the ambition, by putting in legislation a target that is not minimum? It should be the minimum and should allow for greater ambition over the next ten years, as we see the urgency increase.

The limitation of liability is one of the most troubling clauses in the entire Bill. It is one the public will be very concerned about because it effectively washes the hands of the Government from the point of view of accountability in respect of financial or other compensation, supports or recompense to individuals or communities impacted by climate change if the Government chooses not to take action under any of the provisions of this Bill. We are limiting that liability at the same time as we are adding new liabilities. The Government wants to add a new liability that did not exist before for compensation to investors who may be affected by our climate action. We are creating a greater financial risk with these investors, which we do not need to create, while diminishing our compensation to individuals. That, too, may be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have two minutes left and there are many more issues to discuss, including data centres, biodiversity and liquefied natural gas, LNG. I am sure we will discuss them on Committee Stage. I will focus on the definition of "climate justice", which we spent hours discussing at the climate action committee, because it is possibly the most important issue to me. The definition in this Bill adds insult to injury for people in the developing world, including the people in Malawi I spoke about who have produced 0.11 tonnes per person.It simply suggests, in so far as it is practicable to do so, we might safeguard their rights. Rights are optional now for those most vulnerable persons. We will endeavour to share the burdens and benefits. We will share the burdens further with them. That does not match the Mary Robinson Foundation definition, which was very clear on common and differentiated responsibilities, that is that those who have done the most to cause climate change have the greatest responsibility to reduce emissions, which is core to climate justice. It does not reflect that and it does not in any way reflect the definition we, as a committee, collectively put forward. Those are important points and this is something that needs to be addressed.

It has been pointed out there is no definition of just transition in the Bill. That is missing. That stands out as an area for repair. Very strong and good definitions are available in other legislation across the world on which we should be able to draw.

Lastly, I compliment a biodiversity measure, which has got better recognition in the Bill, as drafted. It is important we follow through on that by ensuring we protect biodiversity and proper environmental measures and policies in the round in the way that we take climate action. In terms of liquefied natural gas, LNG, I would like the Minister in his response to Second Stage to clarify exactly why there is not a ban on LNG infrastructure in the Bill. That would help us as we deal with Committee Stage. I do not know what the legal arguments are and I have not read any solid legal argument. If the arguments relate to the energy charter treaty, let us hear and know that. I would like the Minister to confirm whether that is or is not the case.