Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The amendment was introduced, as it states, for "the avoidance of doubt" because it was never intended or expected that we would, in a sense, set up a justiciability whereby in the case of an individual action, such as an investment decision having been made for a power plan or transport project, the remedy would be financial liability in respect of that act. The provision is fully justiciable. It has strength and the Supreme Court judgment of last summer copper-fastens it. There is compellability on the Government such that if it does not follow the processes put in place by the Bill to deliver the objectives, it can be brought to court and held to account in regard to whether it is pursuing the requirements set out in the legislation. That is appropriate, and the Supreme Court judgment showed that the remedy in that case was the annulling of the plan. The Government cannot ignore a Supreme Court judgment where it is clearly in breach of the import of the law.

The import in question relates to setting out the processes by which we must meet the 2050 goal. It is not to hold to account each decision of whatever kind, particularly those that relate to investment or other decisions, and to have the remedy such that a financial penalty will be applied by the courts. The Bill has never been constructed in that way. It would have to be changed in its entirety in order to set up that sort of construct. That was never envisaged but, for the avoidance of doubt, this provision was included. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.