Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment relates to the section of the Bill which is supposed to be the section in which we pull back from fossil fuels and stop issuing licences. I will pull up the relevant pages because this is a matter on which it is useful to have the facts. Unfortunately, the withdrawal is not as clean as it should be. This is because, in saying that new licences will not be issued, a number of exemptions are provided for, including in situations where, prior to commencement of the section, the Minister has entered an undertaking. I will point out the sections I propose to amend. Section 20(6) says that, where an exploration licence, a petroleum prospecting licence, an undertaking or a petroleum lease is in place, they might not be removed. That can be understood, although we might need to move towards radical decisions in that area. The sections about which I am concerned are sections 20(2), 20(3), 20(4) and 20(5) which provide for the granting of new exploration licences, petroleum prospecting licences, petroleum leases and undertakings where there has been previous engagement from the State. Where the Minister has entered into an undertaking, he or she may then add to that by granting an exploration licence or prospecting licence.

The section on which I am specifically focused, and which I am really concerned about, states that, where the Minister has granted an exploration licence, he or she may go on to grant a petroleum prospecting licence, a petroleum lease or an undertaking. In such situations, a company may have only had a licence to explore and to look at an area. When we try to object to planning applications relating to exploration we are told that it is only exploration rather than extraction and that climate issues will be considered if a licence for extraction is sought. However, this section seems to suggest that the mere granting of an exploration licence means that the Minister may still grant licences for prospecting and extraction. That is extremely concerning. What the Minister is telling us with this section is that he is happy to start brand-new fossil fuel extraction in this State wherever there has been exploration. That is not sustaining what we have and certainly does not represent the stopping of the granting of new licences, which we were told was happening.That is not stopping new licences or leases, it is providing for them. It seems to be providing them in a scenario based on some kind of concern about the Energy Charter Treaty. The Minister did not answer my earlier question on that treaty. I ask him to clarify if these measures have been put in the Bill due to concerns and expectations about the Energy Charter Treaty. Is the State unwilling to take actions that might be necessary and are ambitious in ensuring that we do not issue new licences or leases for petroleum extraction here? Why are we not taking those actions? Is it because we are concerned about the Energy Charter Treaty and being sued for compensation? That is a real concern.

This is a serious matter if we look at it globally. The International Energy Agency has been very clear that to achieve our goal of 1.5°C, which is the ultimate objective outlined at the start of the Bill, no new oil or gas exploration licences or developments should be approved after 2021. Academics have outlined that the extraction of fossil fuels must stop. The concern is that if we renew licences that already exist and grant licences to those who have explored and if a few other countries take the same approach, we will not stop climate change. We are looking towards a point where we will have to come back, possibly under section 6, and where activities under some of the existing licences might need to stop. If we say we are in a bind and have to allow those activities to continue, what does that say to places like Uganda, where Irish companies will be pressing the Government of that country to continue with oil and gas extraction in the Queen Elizabeth National Park? There is a real danger that if we start limiting our ambition to what we think we can do without annoying companies, that ambition will not be enough to keep the temperature below the threshold needed for safety on this planet. If Canada and all these other countries do the same, and everybody says that they will just keep going with the things they have started or, in the case of exploration, the things they thought about starting, then we will not have done enough. I ask the Minister to remove those exemptions, so that when we talk about having stopped petroleum licences it will actually be true. That would be good.

On fracking, which was discussed earlier, I will point out that the fracking amendment originally came from the Fine Gael back benches. The divestment from fossil fuels trumpeted by the Government around the world and on the back of which it sold many green bonds came about on foot of a Bill put forward by Deputy Pringle. This is a reminder that the ideas and ambition we need are not necessarily emanating from the Department in those cases. They have come from concerned public representatives from the back benches, Government and Opposition. It is a good reminder of where we have had progress so far on oil and gas. I worry that we do not see the same level of vision or ambition we saw from those backbenchers and individual Members in this set of measures from the Department. I see equivocation, dilution of ambition and an emphasis on economic concerns.

I suggest the removal of these exemptions. I have a number of related amendments because this is quite a large set. They again mirror some of that limitation of liability language at the very start of the Bill and one of which states:

For the avoidance of doubt, no remedy or relief by way of damages or compensation is available where a Minister declines to grant a lease or licence or enter into an undertaking under this section or approve the renewal, extension or progression of any licence, lease or undertaking ... where, in the opinion of the Minister, such actions would be inconsistent with any provision of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act ... and any obligation or duty created thereunder.

This is the flip side of that provision for limitation of liability at the beginning of the Bill. This is where it is stated that if it is an obligation that we have because it is set out in the Bill, we will not pay compensation for doing what we have to do to fulfil our duties under the Bill. It does not matter whether there was an expectation or a profit planned, or whether we were looking forward to selling some oil or gas in the future, or whatever, because we will not grant that licence and we will owe nothing if we do it because we are doing it for the right reasons, that is, our obligations and duties under the Bill.

This is the safety net for the Government, again, in respect of investment court systems. I do not know whether it is a strong enough safety net but it is an attempt at one in respect of both the investment court system under CETA - given that, crucially, many Canadian companies are heavy investors in Ireland's oil and gas fields - and the current provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Will the Minister please be clear in regard to the Energy Charter Treaty, how it impacts in this regard and what it means in respect of these provisions? Is that why exploration is still mentioned? Cases may, of course, be taken in national courts, but the compensation bills that come from national courts are not the same and a national court would be obliged to consider domestic law and other priorities, whereas an investor tribunal, according to the text of CETA, may only consider domestic law but does not have to. Will the Minister address what I have outlined? I would like him to consider taking on board this safety net.

Amendment No. 46 refers to "[n]othing in this section". I am concerned that by not including it, we might be digging ourselves a deeper hole and creating expectations. Companies might say that the legislation signals that wherever there is an exploration licence, one can expect prospecting to be permitted. Will that apply to other areas for which exploration licences have been granted or to other extractive industries? That is the concern and I tried to address it by being clear. If the Minister cannot accept the other amendments relating to safety nets, he might accept this short one, amendment No. 46, which clarifies: "Nothing in this section shall be construed as constituting an inducement to investment or giving rise to any expectations for any persons for the granting of any licence or lease." It will allow the granting of licences and so on to continue, but will protect the Government and the State against what might be perceived as inducements, encouragements or the creation of expectations. Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are similar in that they specifically provide that licences and leases may be granted under the sections, but not where doing so would be contrary to the goals in the Bill.