Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not asking the Minister to put liability into the Bill. I am asking him not to put a limitation of liability into the Bill. I note that the previous climate Bill did not have a limitation of liability clause. It is, therefore, perfectly possible to have climate legislation that does not include a limitation of liability clause. It is not standard in this practice. It is a decision and a choice to insert a limitation of liability. The reason it is important is that it represents a number of areas whereby instead of responding to the Climate Case Ireland judgment and some of the other measures, there seems to be a curtailment. There have been arguments used in terms of limiting the exposure, some of which I will come to later, for example, regarding whether the Government or just the Minister will be accountable.

Those taking cases, including group cases and cases taken together, are not always environmental NGOs. They are sometimes groups of citizens. Young people have taken cases together and groups of people who live in areas that are due to be flooded have take action together. It is collective action that is taken, as well as individual action, when human rights are violated. People are entitled under the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, to redress.

Limitation of liability was not in the 2015 Act or in the heads of Bill sent to the joint Oireachtas committee. I am concerned that it has been added to this Bill. It is not for me to say why liability should be included. It is for the Minister to explain why he has chosen to insert a limitation. This is related to investors. If the Minister accepts the idea that we need to be careful because we cannot have every person whose ground has been flooded taking a case, let us be clear, we cannot provide for every company that is disappointed about a licence for extraction or which has expectations. The phrase "legitimate expectations" is one which is used a lot in investor courts. Many people who have secured planning permission, for example, may have legitimate expectations that the place for which they have obtained planning permission will not be flooded. That is an example of a legitimate expectation. It is not clear how deep down this exclusion of liability goes. It refers not only to the text of the Bill but also to the obligations or duties created thereunder. It is not clear how deep into the sectoral strategies this limitation of liability will extend. That needs clarity.

I would like the Minister to address the text of my amendment which relates to investors. Does he believe the State should have a liability to investors and have to pay them compensation in respect of actions it takes on climate change under the provisions of this Bill? That is what my amendment relates to.