Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a few questions. There are a few areas of this Bill that I have concerns about and there is one overarching piece. It is not fully clear to me why so many powers are being transferred from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to the Minister for Transport. On a fundamental level, I can see there are certain areas where that might be appropriate, but there are quite a substantial amount of powers being transferred. In this instance and at the moment, they may be the same individual. As much as when there were significant issues when housing and heritage were put together, similarly, things being bundled but moved to different competencies comes with different officials, Departments and mandates. I would like the general case for what this is and why it is being done in this way. We need to know exactly why and exactly why to this extent that transfer is taking place. The measures may well be necessary.

I will power through a few areas. I am identifying areas where I genuinely have questions because I am not sure how to approach them. I refer to the shift whereby the report from the National Oil Reserves Agency is now going to the Minister for Transport. Does that mean the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications will no longer be receiving reports from the National Oil Reserves Agency? In a way, oil is not solely important for transport. If we talk about emergencies, transport is not even the main or most important function in genuine emergency situations. It is a curious transfer of ministry. It seems that will affect the annual reports. Is it the case that the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications will no longer be getting annual reports from the National Oil Reserves Agency despite their overarching responsibilities regarding energy policy?

Section 18 states the Minister for Transport may be able to make regulations and orders under some of these sections that are very important around renewable transport and fuels. Biofuel obligations, crop caps, the minimum percentage volume that was mentioned and the engagement around biofuels are key environmental and energy policy issues. It is not clear to me. I am concerned that the transport function is becoming the key piece here and the oversight may be lost in the transition to renewables and that general policy change.

I refer to sections 11 and 12, specifically around the minimum percentage issue that I mentioned. Some of the biofuel regulation obligations do not seem to come with these consultations. However, on minimum percentage there is consultation with a number of bodies, including the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, which I am glad to see, but not the Climate Change Advisory Council. Would it not be appropriate, given the significance of these fuels in climate change, to be consulting with the Climate Change Advisory Council under sections 11 and 12?

Under section 14, the exemptions are a little unclear to me. We need to be clear. We are certainly not suggesting that the exemptions would in any way be exemptions from any of the obligations we may have taken on under the climate action plan, as I understand it. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify exactly what the exemptions mean.

I mentioned section 18. The oil emergency plan in section 20 is a key concern. In certain other areas, such as the percentage of renewable fuels, there is at least consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. In the oil emergency plan, there is not. There is simply consultation with such other Minister as the Minister considers appropriate. We are in danger whereby we may have oil emergency plans that will set perhaps significant policies on petroleum, oil and other fuels, which may not involve consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. This is a key concern. I do not believe that is appropriate for the Minister for Transport, with limited capacity and limited responsibility in terms of transport, when in fact back-up oil generators for our hospitals may well be far more of a priority in respect of oil if we are genuinely in an emergency.I do not understand why the Minister for Transport is leading in the context of an oil emergency plan and why the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications is not centre stage. That does not make sense.

Sections 23 and 24 relate to the transfer of functions, including the European Union's greenhouse gas-emission-reduction calculation methods and reporting requirements. I am very concerned we might end up with a different or parallel reporting mechanism in respect of energy fuels coming through the Minister for Transport.

The amendment in section 31 relating to emergency and the general restriction for the common good is welcome. It is appropriate. However, I raised a point with the Minister when the NORA legislation was going through the House three years ago. I stated that we should surely be looking to a point where the Minister can also issue directions with regard to renewable energy and reserving it in times of crisis or emergency for both the public good and the areas of greatest public and social need. Ireland and Europe should be moving towards a renewable energy reserve and renewable energy emergency strategies we can deploy in difficult times.