Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am glad that more nuance is at least being added. I was concerned about the lack of clarity as to how the process of removals would be approached and what models and measures will be adopted. I made that clear at the time.

It is important for me to speak now because amendment No. 9 in my name, to which we will come later, relates to removals and to the importance of international best practice as to how we approach those. In that regard, I welcome that the Minister referred to having regard to the rules of the European Union on the regulations or removals. I would prefer if the phrase "be consistent with" applied. I would also prefer if there was a direct reference to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, because the best international measurements and calculations of removals may well come from the scientific experts within the UN and the IPCC. In that context, I would have liked the legislation to include a reference to the UN. The European Union is fine, it is referred to and we engage through it. However, it is also vital that we signal the importance we attach to this matter. I am aware that the European Union will seek to comply with the UN measures but I would have liked if those were referred to directly. I reiterate that I also like if it was a matter of being consistent with the rules of the European Union rather than having regard to them.

Under the proposed subsection (5B) in amendment No. 23, the Government may make regulations to specify a new base year in respect of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for budget periods after 31 December 2030. I would like to know what is meant by that because I am a little concerned. It could be that we are moving back to the 1992 measures or those of the other years. If we were consistent with the rest of Europe in terms of our base year, that would be good, especially as new European laws evolve. We know that there will be very strict rules coming through from Europe. For clarity and to facilitate better engagement with our European partners, it would be good if we could have a similar base year. There are problems with that because at a certain point Ireland was a very low emitter but then became and stayed a very high emitter. The crucial point is that if there is a change in the base year, that change should not be such that the actual tonnage of emission reductions required would be reduced. We do not want to arrive at our 51% reduction by 2030 - I hope we can do that, and I believe we will, although we have created a number of obstacles to navigate, unfortunately, to get there - when the base year then changes and suddenly we start seeing that Ireland has 60% and 70% reductions and we are giving ourselves wonderful news about what we are doing but we are not actually referring to the same thing.

The Minister will be very aware of the principle in the Paris Agreement of highest possible ambition and progression. I would like assurances from him that we will not either pick a year that might be more appropriate for our EU colleagues but which that is not appropriate for us or pick any other year. We could, of course, pick the year of our lowest emissions and have that as the baseline. That is provided for here. I want the Minister to make clear the provisions that are there to ensure that any change in the base year will not in any way contribute to a lessening of either progression or our level of ambition and that will only represent our moving to a higher level of ambition. I am just concerned because what is proposed does not make provide that.

The Minister will be aware that the Scottish legislation contains a ratchet clause. Such a clause is very useful. The ratchet clause in the CETA Bill is unfortunate because it stops us re-nationalising private services but the ratchet clause in the context of the Scottish legislation is really useful because it means that you are only increasing your level of ambition. When we start talking about percentages and tonnage, it is in the context that we want to see a reduction in tonnage of emissions year on year.In the end, that is where we need to go. Will the Minister address the proposed subsection (5B) and give us reassurances in respect of it?