Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, line 1, to delete “, in so far as it is practicable to do so,”.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 represent my proposed changes to the Government definition of "climate justice". That definition has now been removed. I want to be clear that in supporting the removal of the language in that definition, I have not necessarily agreed with the principle that we should not try to have a good definition of "climate justice". That is why I respect and understand others who were not able to support its removal, because they want a stronger definition reinserted. I am glad the text that was there has been removed. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 were attempts to improve that text by direct reference to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, and common but differentiated responsibilities.Amendment No. 8 refers to the removal of the language "in so far as it is practicable to do so". This is probably one of the crucial problems with the Bill as it stands. Many of the recommendations we made in the Joint Committee on Climate Action related to the need for stronger and clearer language and to accountability. The Minister talked about the amendments he has accepted or partially accepted but all non-Government members of the climate committee voted that they disagreed with the Minister's assessment as to whether he had taken on the committee's amendments and recommendations and the extent to which he had done so.

One of the clear points we spoke about was strength of language. There have been some improvements. It is important that "achieve" was added. That is stronger language than what was there before. In some places, "have regard to" has been replaced with "be consistent with". Those are improvements and they strengthen the language. However, a big caveat running all the way through the Bill is the phrase "in so far as it is practicable to do so". In many places in the Bill where the Minister is told he or she has to comply with something, that caveat is added. I worry about that phrase. It is wide open, in terms of what might or might not be practicable. What might be framed as common sense or economic practicality? What might be practical to satisfy existing interests? What might be politically practicable? It is a very wide phrase. It has loose meaning in the Constitution. We have had cruel and hard debates about the difference between something being possible or practical in the Constitution. In that case, one implied a strong hope there would be an understanding that there needed to be a looser definition of what is practicable, rather than what is possible, in relation to compelling a pregnant person to endure artificial respiration.

We should take "in so far as is practicable" out of the Bill. It is too wide a caveat. In some places where it appears, it is a caveat added onto a caveat. One such area is where Ministers are asked as far as practicable to be consistent with the climate budget or their goals. What that actually says is that it is okay to be inconsistent.

The Minister may need caveats like "progressive realisation" or "make all reasonable efforts". Those phrases have more substance and require the Minister to be on the right track and do his or her best to move forward on it. However, this caveat, "in so far as is practicable to do so", attached to "be consistent" means the Minister may or may not need to achieve the climate targets and may or may not even need to be consistent with them. We do not need that dilution in this Bill.

I want this to be a strong Bill that works. We can save ourselves hours, weeks and months of wrangling with different Ministers, each talking about what he or she thinks is and is not practicable. This is our chance to nail down strong climate legislation. Let us nail it down.