Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

We have discussed this already but I will go back into it again. I thank Senator Boylan for making her points. The role of Government throughout the climate Bill is central to the operation of the Bill. There are great changes between this Bill and the previous Bill. The overall target is set in the legislation and this is something of which the Government will need to have clear consideration. A statutory obligation is being created, one that is almost certainly justiciable. That is by design.

Even without any broad sweeping obligations, the Government remains the Executive power of the State and is therefore answerable to the courts. If the legislation is not fulfilling the targets set in the Bill, the Government is likely to be in court.

However, a scenario involving the Government ending up in court is not an efficient way to do business. I understand that we want to have justiciable legislation and to have the measure as a final resort. However, I wish to remind everyone that over the past decade, we had legally binding targets for emissions reductions that were simply ignored. They were not met. They were in theory legally binding. There were fines and in theory a person could force a country to meet those obligations. Ireland simply did not do it. My fear is that in the coming decade or in the period between 2020 and 2030, this would happen again. Simply having a mechanism that produces an option to bring the Government or a Minister to court and impose a fine on either party or force them by court order to do something will be ineffective, even though it is put forward as a solution. It did not work before. It does not work because the Governments in place during the past decade are gone now. They have been dissolved and the Ministers who were in office are no longer in those Ministries. Everyone has moved on. Who will a complainant take to court? Will it be the new person who has moved in or the new Government? It is not an effective way to achieve climate change. One way that is effective is when people have a change of mindset, when everyone commits and when there is a genuine public desire to change the economic, social, cultural and environmental norms that we have had for something new. That is what we need to do rather than bring the Government to court. Throughout the process there has been a great focus on bringing the Government or a Minister to court and having a judge order the Minister or Government to change their ways after the fact.

One of the big changes in the 2021 Bill is that it now imposes specific obligations on the Government in a way that was not the case before. This is distinct from the 2015 Act, which imposed obligations on a relevant body or Minister. Now, the Government has those obligations.

Section 5 of the 2021 Bill substitutes a new section 3 in the 2015 Act that imposes specific obligations on the State to reduce the extent of further global warming and to pursue and achieve, no later than the year 2050, the transition to a climate-resilient, biodiversity-rich and environmentally-suitable climate-neutral economy. It imposes a specific obligation on the State to pursue and achieve the national climate objective and, in that context, obliges the Minister to make and submit to the Government for approval a carbon budget, a sectoral emissions ceiling, a climate action plan, a national long-term plan of action and a national adaptation framework. It is by doing all these things, by involving the public, Deputies and Senators in both Houses, by involving every part of society in a process that is constantly monitored and updated, that has legal backing and that has buy-in from the public, that we achieve change. It is not by appearing in the High Court and getting a judge to get a sanction against a Minister who has retired.

Under section 3(3), as substituted, the Minister and the Government are now bound by an overarching obligation to carry out their respective functions under sections 4, 5, 6, 6B, 6C and 6D of the 2015 Act, as amended, in a manner consistent with the ultimate objective specified in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Paris Agreement.

I will not accept the amendment as it would create a potential inconsistency with the specific and unambiguous obligations imposed on the Government in the context of section 3 of the 2015 Act, as substituted. It would impose a level of micromanagement on the Government that would be unprecedented in its scope and would lead to the possibility of endless legal challenge to Government actions on climate change. The time should instead be spent carrying out climate actions rather than engaging in court battles. This would potentially endanger the achievement of the fundamental objective of the Bill.