Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 7, after line 38, to insert the following: “(2) No remedy or relief by way of compensation shall be available to investors with respect to actions taken to comply with any provision of this Act or any obligation or duty created thereunder.”.

This amendment relates to one of the most problematic aspects of the Bill as a whole. It is an aspect that we did not have the opportunity to discuss at the Oireachtas joint committee because it was added in subsequently. It is an aspect which I believe gives the lie to much of the narrative on just transition, bringing people with us, minding families, caring about rural Ireland and everything else. The clause in section 4 that I seek to amend concerns the limitation of liability. If we talk about get-out cards, this is probably one of the widest and most dangerous loopholes I have ever seen inserted into a Bill.

It is important to read out what this clause, which has been added by the Government to the Bill, states, namely, "For the avoidance of doubt no remedy or relief by way of damages or compensation is available with respect to or arising out of any failure, of whatever kind, to comply with any provision of this Act or any obligation or duty created thereunder." What the Government is saying is it is not liable if it does not deliver what is in this Bill. The clause mentions "any failure, of whatever kind", not failure even though one made best reasonable efforts. It does not even contain that weak language we discussed earlier. It specifies a failure of any kind "to comply with any provision of this Act or any obligation or duty created thereunder." It is a great washing of the hands of responsibility and accountability. Its existence is notably at odds with the key concerns that were raised at the Citizens' Assembly on climate action, namely, justiciability and accountability. Through this clause, the Government is saying that people in Ireland will not get any damages or compensation if it chooses not to deliver on the climate plan, sectoral targets or anything else. No compensation or damages will be available.

In the past, people marched and protested on issues such as mica and radon. Let us be clear, through this clause, the Government is washing its hands of responsibility in respect of any of those whose ground is flooded as a result of policy choices that the Government has made, for whatever reason. It does not include failure because the Government is making hard choices. It is not even a caveat of failure having made best reasonable efforts. It is concerns "any failure, of whatever kind". That is what is contained in the clause.

That limitation of liability needs to be placed in a number of contexts. I regret that my amendment which references the European Convention on Human Rights has been ruled out of order, apparently as involving a cost to the State. Even the very fact of it having been determined that it would involve a cost to the State if, as my amendment states, the right to redress or "the right to effective remedy under the European Convention on Human Rights" was ensured, which may include compensation or damages. The very fact that it was decided that including reference to the right to effective remedy under the European Convention on Human Rights, which has already been signed up to, is regarded as creating a charge appears to indicates an intention not to deliver effective remedy under the European Convention on Human Rights.