Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. I am very glad we have been given sufficient time to speak on Second Stage of this Bill. Regardless of whether some of us are here for only one term or many terms over future decades in the Dáil or Seanad, this Bill will probably be the most important one with which we will deal. It is important to acknowledge that this is a very important moment for campaigners. The Minister has spent many years campaigning on this issue to get our country into a place where we tackle the climate crisis in this country and make our contribution to the global task that is needed.

I am conscious many things have been said so I will confine my comments to a small number of areas in the Bill. It is important to say there is an enormous leap in climate action policy in this Bill in the ambitious target to reduce emissions by 51% by 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2050, but we need to look at tools through which the Government plans to drive down emissions. Ultimately, as the Minister knows only too well, we can have all the lofty ambitions in the world but it is about how we do it. In that context, it is about the timeframe for action and the penalties or correction mechanisms that are in place if Government fails to act.

When I look at the two together, I believe there is a paucity of ambition in this Bill with regard to tackling climate change. I look at the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012, which was put in place to set down specific targets and actions that any Government would have to take with regard to ensuring the sound management of the public finances in this country, and contrast that with the fiscal framework in this Bill. The Fiscal Responsibility Act had a very clear commitment to annual targeting of debt and deficit targets, a medium-term objective that was reviewed every three years and an explicit correction mechanism. This Bill does not have specific annual targets. We have the two-year and five-year plans and a target for nine years' time.There is, however, a very real and considerable concern that we are backloading the need for drastic action to the end of this decade. I appreciate that the Minister has said he believes it is being front-loaded but I believe, and I share the concerns of others, that it is being backloaded.

There is an absence of what I would call a correction mechanism. I take on board the point that there is a carry forward of provisions from one year to the next depending on performance. However, while the limiting of the liability is a welcome feature of the Bill in curbing the ability of any corporate body to take a case against the State in the event of a loss of earnings or business, that limiting needs to be carefully calibrated. None of us want the Government to be taken to court because of a failure to meet its targets, but we do need to put in place some sort of stick. Perhaps it needs to be some sort of automatic stabiliser whereby failure to meet a target will result in something kicking in. We have to be crystal clear that those who are best able to pay should pay. I am reminded of the definition put forward by the Mary Robinson Foundation in respect of climate justice to the effect that those who cause the most damage must shoulder the greatest responsibility. We could be mindful of that in how we approach that correction mechanism.

At the heart of this Bill there is a recognition of the necessity of the role of the State to intervene in the climate crisis and a recognition that relying on the market has not worked and will not work into the future. There are, however, two vital pieces missing. The first relates to the paltry reference to a just transition. I know many others have spoken about this issue, but we need to strengthen those provisions. I pay tribute to the trade union movement, which led on talking about the need for a just transition and about communities, workers and industry coming together. I welcome in particular the appointment of Patricia King to the advisory council. There is an opportunity in this Bill to get it right, not to kick it down the road to another piece of legislation, as has been committed to. The second thing missing is a commitment to climate justice. Phrases like "shall, in so far as it is practicable to do so, safeguard the rights of ... vulnerable persons" are the equivalent of motherhood and apple pie. We all want world peace and climate action, but unless we are willing to prioritise climate justice I do not think we will achieve the targets we need to achieve.

Regarding climate justice, the Bill could do an awful lot more to recognise that we have to change how we deliver housing and public transport. Of all housing stock in this country, 14.8% is F or G energy-rated, so it is no surprise that Ireland has the second highest rate of utility bills arrears among low-income households. That is because of how our houses are constructed and the failure to put in place proper State provision of housing.

The final point I will make is that we need a new way of thinking about public transport. I know this is a matter very close to the Minister's heart, but I need to express my outrage about the manner in which the DART south west project is progressing. The community in Cabra will be bypassed by this magnificent piece of infrastructure. This is a community of thousands of people commuting day in, day out. We cannot have communities in Cabra and similar areas being bypassed. I ask that the Minister to address that as a matter of urgency. I do not believe he can stand over it, or I should hope that he does not stand over it, but I ask him in his capacity as Minister to address that as urgently as possible.