Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Section 3(3) states that the Minister and Government shall carry out their respective functions in a manner that is consistent with the UNFCCC, mitigation or adaptation commitments entered into under the European Union and Articles 2 and 4.1 of the Paris Agreement. It does not state that the Government is required to do what was at issue in the High Court case.

Section 15 states that a relevant body shall have regard to the most recently approved adaptation mitigation plan and so on. It does not speak to those specific plans. It simply states that the Government has to be consistent in its functions. It is not clear which functions are involved. The Government may well be consistent in terms of its functions, but it may not be regarded in its functions as having to be relevant and consistent with other factors, specifically the sectoral adaptation plans, the national adaptation framework, the national mitigation plan and so forth.

This is not completely new legislation. It is, ultimately, amending the 2015 legislation. It is still in place. This is not a tabula rasa. There may be a concern about section 15. The judge did not spontaneously come up with these issues. They came up because those arguments were put forward.

In order to give confidence to everybody, including the public, that there is no intention to have some future argument it would be advisable to consider these points. If there is no legal reason not to refer to the Government of Ireland in section 15, as I propose in amendment No. 108, why not do so? The great legal concept is "for the avoidance of doubt". It would be very useful for the avoidance of doubt and it should be considered.