Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I ended our previous debate on this Bill by saying Ireland is starting late and we should be starting stronger and I begin by saying that again. We are not world leaders on climate action yet; we are laggards still. The test is still to come. We should be starting stronger. Members are right that the work is still ahead of us. I think we could have made that work easier with a stronger Bill. We could have been stronger on the definitions of "climate justice" and "just transition". The test now will be for the Government to prove itself on action in those areas since it did not insert strong definitions into the Bill. The test will be on action and it will be watched carefully. The limited liability clause creates greater vulnerability for all those persons, small businesses and farmers across the country who will be and are being impacted by climate change. The opportunity to limit liability in respect of international investors was not taken. It will be really important that we oppose any extra hostages to fortune in respect of the chilling effect of international investors through the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, or the investment court system, ICS. The language is still not as strong as it could be, and the interpretation of phrases such as "as far as practicable" will be really important. We have heard assurances from the Minister as to how he sees this, but it will be important to see how all the bodies and all the Ministers will use such phrases, and that will require attention.

The opportunity to stop any new petroleum licences or leases was not taken and they are still allowed under this Bill. The opportunity to ban LNG was not seized either.

The final piece we have here, the amendment before us and section 6A, comes following the last-minute amendments last week. When those amendments came through last week, as I looked at them for the very first time the day they were presented to us, I identified a few issues. There were two or three issues with the content of the amendments the Government put forward. I highlighted those issues at that time. Subsequently, it very quickly became clear that there were also problems with where the amendments were to be inserted. Finally, there were problems with what we might call the safety net clause of the Bill, namely section 3(3). Again, it is not as strong a safety net as we would have wished. It did not apply to those provisions. It is not as strong a safety net as it could be. It refers only to some articles of the UNFCC and only some articles of the Paris Agreement. I am glad, however, that the safety net will at least apply to this new Government function. However, the other problems - the ones I identified and the other ones which I did not identify when I saw the amendments first - still apply. There is the concern that the Bill mentions lots of greenhouses gases, determining the greenhouse gas emissions, which does not rule out the idea of the exclusion of certain greenhouse gas emissions. That is still a concern. There is the fact that the Government would only have regard to the European rules rather than being consistent with them. I mentioned in the debate at that time the concern about the UN procedures and rules. The ultimate target compliance is not the same as compliance with best evolving practice. Finally, there is the question of the baseline year. Those were the issues of concern the last time we debated the Bill.

The other issue which is a key concern is the location of the text to be inserted, and that is what gives rise to this amendment. These regulations were not regulations the Government was making for itself in how it approaches things. The amendments relating to removals that I tabled went to the definitions section of the Bill and related to how the Government might approach its removals. They were inserted into the section where the independent advisory council sits. I have raised my concern about a political requirement to reach only 51% less than the annual greenhouse gas emissions reported for the year ending on 31 December 2018 and not more being placed on the advisory council telling it what conclusion to come to for 2030. Now these regulations, by being located in section 6A, also tell the advisory council how to do it, what answer to get to and how to get there. Those are real concerns. I note that these are not ministerial guidelines and I know the Minister will intend to use them with the absolute best intent, but they are Government guidelines and Government regulations. That is a concern. We have now created a new space where we will have to be vigilant and where attention will have to be paid. It creates a tension because the UNFCC already applied to what the climate advisory council was doing under subsection (9), as did best international practice. The concern was always what happens when the ball bounces out of the advisory council's court and into the Government's. The amendments I proposed the last time the Bill was before us, specifically amendment No. 9, would have meant that the Government in its removal would have the same constraint the advisory council has, which was best international practice. As the Bill now stands, the advisory council will be torn between its obligations to best international practice, with which it must be consistent, and its obligation to comply with the Government regulations. We can hope that the Government regulations and best international practice might be the same, but that will be a very serious test now. It is very important that there would be a signal such that where there is any conflict, best international practice will take precedence. The members of the advisory council are there as experts, and that will be crucial and an area for testing.

I am glad section 6A is being inserted into section 3(3). I will support the amendment because it deals with one of the three layers of problems we have, but the other problems remain to be addressed. I wish we had taken the opportunity to strengthen this more, to make it more progressive and to accept progressive amendments rather than seeking to dilute in any sense or to move power away from the advisory council and from the Minister. We could have been stronger going in, and there were progressive proposals that we were told could not be accepted because the Bill was as strong as it could be, but then it got a little weaker. I hope the Minister will engage with progressive proposals. He will note that he did not have to weaken the Bill to get support in the Dáil but that when he weakened the Bill he lost support in the Dáil. I ask him to engage actively with those in the Opposition, not just those who are worried or concerned about climate action but also those who are passionately demanding more ambitious climate action. Let us move forward on this together.