I remind Members that this debate is to adjourn after one hour, if not previously concluded.
Oil Emergency Contingency and Transfer of Renewable Transport Fuels Functions Bill 2023: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
In section 9 we have an amendment in the name of Senators Higgins and Ruane. Amendments Nos. 1, 21 to 29, inclusive, and 31 to 34, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed..
I ask Senator Higgins to move amendment No. 1, please?
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, to delete lines 25 to 28 and substitute the following:
“(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a), the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications shall consult with—
(i) the Minister for Finance,
(ii) the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,
(iii) the Minister for Transport,”.
There are a number of these amendments grouped together. Some of these arise from questions I raised here in the earlier session and a number of them I have been able to resolve myself, by examining what is meant by which Minister. Amendment No. 1 and a number of other amendments relate to the switchover of powers between the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Minister for Transport and much of the time I am looking to clarify almost who is consulting with whom. Perhaps the Minister of State may be able to address my questions in terms of these.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend paragraph (b) in the proposed amendment to section 44D(4) and this may be just a technical issue, in that it is not clear to me. The Minister, as I understand it in the Bill, is generally the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Minister for Transport is then given by name. This may be just a technical error in that section. It states that "the Minister shall consult with– ..." and it then mentions the Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications as somebody the Minister would consult with, but that is the same Minister, according to the definition of the Minister earlier. That would therefore mean the Minister would be consulting with himself or herself in section 9 of the Bill. Again, this may be just a technical error or perhaps the definition of Minister is due to change in that section. This is in conflict with the definition section.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to amend the new section 58A by specifying that, while making regulations under that section, the Minister for Transport would do so in consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. This new section 58A empowers the Minister for Transport to make regulations in respect of sections 44D, 44E, 44G, 44GA, 44J and 44X, which relate to renewable transport fuel obligations. There are a number of other very important aspects within that, however, which is why I have also proposed to make a specific requirement in respect of some of these because they cut across a little wider to things like the question on biofuels regulations and the caps on the percentage of renewable energy. These are ones which need particular requirements.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to delete the provision that the Minister for Transport may make regulations in respect of sections 44D of the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, Act. Section 44D of this Act relates to the Minister's percentage rate in respect of renewable transport fuel obligation. Again, this is an issue with such a significant environmental component that the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications is a more appropriate home for that power.
There were also other issues in section 44D I wished to discuss. Section 44D also addresses the issue of the biofuel obligation, the crop cap and the issue of high indirect land use change, ILUC-risk biofuel. The question of biofuel, as the Minister of State will be aware, is one of the very significant environmental issues we are facing as regards one of the big questions as to what is ethically an appropriate level or use of biofuel with regard to land-use. This is a very significant debate. We see that France at the moment is trying to use, for example, French Guiana and to press one of its former colonial assets into the production of biofuel to the detriment of natural rainforest. Biofuel is a very significant issue internationally and is not an uncomplicated one.
It is important the top supervisory power in this regard remains with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, rather than simply looking to the biofuel down the line, because there are crop caps and crop-related powers in this regard. The Minister of State will be allso aware of the huge scandals we have had in the past concerning things like palm oil and this substance being rebranded as used cooking oil when it was, in fact, fresh palm oil, etc. This is an area of great complexity and I am concerned about it moving wholesale to the portfolio of the Minister for Transport. This is some of what is covered in section 44D.
Turning to section 44J, this was the other section I was seeking to potentially remove from this transfer of powers. This again somewhat addresses the issue of biofuels. In my proposed amendment No. 24 to section 44X on renewable transport fuel standards, again, while there are certain areas in terms of dealing with emergencies and so forth that may be transferred here, on renewable fuel standards I believe the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications remains the most appropriate one to deal with this issue. While the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are currently combined within the portfolio of the same Minister, this is not standard. I refer to the context of the standards acceptable in terms of genuine renewable fuels. This whole suite of amendments, therefore, is asking for the removal of certain of these areas of transferred powers. The case has not been made as to why these areas of crucial environmental regulation would be transferred wholesale to the Department of Transport. This Department has sectoral targets to meet, but it also does not necessarily have the same expertise or integrated approach the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications can offer.
Amendment No. 25, to section 18 of the Bill, seeks to specify that in the proposed new section 58A(2) of the revised 2007 Act that in making orders for any matter in relation to sections 44D, 44E, 44G, 44GA and 44J of that 2007 Act, as amended, there would be "consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications". Again, even if we are transferring the powers, regarding the specific topics I outlined, some of which are long and detailed, and many of these are not matters I am an expert in by any means but I can identify them as key issues, at a minimum, it would be appropriate that there would be an obligation on the Department of Transport to consult with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. I might bring this proposal forward on Report Stage as a requirement for the agreement of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications-----
I apologise for interrupting the Senator, but we have some very excited students from Kiltiernan and Ballyglass schools in County Galway. Being a Roscommon man, I know that county well. I even know about its footballers. B'fhéidir go bhfuil na múinteoirí agus na tuismitheoirí ann freisin. They are very welcome. I know their tour has to move on, but this is the Seanad Chamber. I hope they enjoy the rest of their day. I thank Senator Higgins for allowing this little disruption to her flow and I apologise to her again.
No problem. Given I am from County Galway myself, it is lovely to meet all the students.
Amendment No. 26 again relates to section 58A of the 2007 Act, as amended. It seeks to delete the proposed changes in this context to section 44D of the 2007 Act, as amended, which again is around the issue of being able to review the percentage rate regarding renewable transport fuel obligations, while amendment No. 27 seeks to make the same deletion in regard to section 44J. Amendment No. 28 to section 18 seeks to insert a new subsection 58A(3) in the revised 2007 Act to state that in relation to the matters prescribed under sections 44D to 44X of that Act the Minister would not only consult with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications but also with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and the Climate Change Advisory Council. This mirrors provisions elsewhere in the Act, except that it also proposes to insert the Climate Change Advisory Council. There will be awareness that I had suggested this body as a potential appropriate party to be consulted in our debate on Second Stage.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to provide in the context of the amendments proposed in section 19 of this Bill to section 64 of the 2007 Act that as well as the agency and the Minister for Transport that the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications would be empowered to bring and prosecute proceedings for offences under sections 44E, 44G and 44GA of the 2007 Act, as amended.
This is really sensible. It is one thing to say that one wants to empower the Minister for Transport to bring prosecutions, but to remove the power to issue prosecutions from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications seems to be a regressive step. I am not going to object to expanding the potential for prosecutions for violations in the context of these serious issues, some of which I have been touching on. They are very serious issues of the breach of regulations relating to the environment and fuels. To remove the power of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to pursue such prosecutions is inappropriate at a time when we really need any breach of standards, especially those that touch on areas like renewable fuels, to be taken exceptionally seriously. In that context, I ask that between now and Report Stage, the Minister of State should consider accepting this very simple amendment, which would ensure that as well as the Minister for Transport, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications would retain the power to initiate prosecutions.
Amendment No. 31 seeks to delete the transfer of functions under section 44D from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to the Minister for Transport. Similarly, amendment No. 32 seeks to delete the transfer of functions under section 44J from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to the Minister for Transport. Section 44J concerns the discharge of renewable transport fuel or biofuel obligations by payment, allowing obligated parties under this legislation to not act in accordance with the provisions relating to renewable transport fuel via a buyout of such obligations. This is a matter of concern. I mentioned section 44J earlier, but did not go into a lengthy description of why it gives rise to concern. Every Department has obligations in respect of sectoral targets under the climate action plan, but it would be a really regressive situation if the Minister for Transport was in a position not just to change the environmental requirements but also to give an opt-out in respect of those requirements by way of a buyout. Cash is going to be worth nothing when it comes to dealing with the climate. One cannot use money to claw back what gets lost in terms of achieving our carbon emissions reduction targets. I am very concerned about that buyback. I am also concerned, in the context of a Department that does not have a strong environmental oversight, that this provision could be used and could lead to the loss of a number of years of essential emissions reductions. If we have a buyout option, people will be able to evade their responsibilities. The State cannot evade its responsibilities, and we, as humans, cannot evade our environmental responsibilities.
Amendment No. 33 seeks the deletion of the transfer of functions under section 44X from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to the Minister for Transport as per section 23. Again, this relates to renewable transport fuel standards and the power to make regulations around minimum standards for such fuel.
Amendment No. 34 relates to the transfer of functions under the EU greenhouse gas emissions reductions regulations. Many of these amendments mirror each other, but a few of them are particularly important. This is one such amendment. I am extremely concerned about the provision that the functions under the EU the European Union (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Calculation Methods and Reporting Requirements) Regulations are being transferred from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to the Minister for Transport. Why are the climate reporting requirements, separate from the climate reporting requirements that all Ministers have under their sectoral targets and so forth, being transferred? Why is the interpretation of the EU standards and regulations and their translation into Irish reporting standards, which is a direct climate and greenhouse gas emissions function, being transferred away from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, who has overall oversight of our climate action and reporting?
I am not convinced that there is a sound argument for this transfer. It is a wholesale transfer. There are a few areas where I can see a case for doing it, but it would be regrettable if we ended up in a situation where we have a future Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications throwing up his or her hands, saying that the Minister for Transport is in charge, that he or she has no power and that there is nothing he or she can do, even if the decisions being made under these powers, as transferred, are having a direct impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, I always feel that everything we can do or control should be done or controlled to the greatest extent. I am concerned about giving these really important areas of decision-making another spin of the wheel to see where they end up because they may not end up being a priority within the Department of Transport, which has many other issues to consider. I am a little concerned as to the underlying logic here. If there is an underlying logic, where are the safeguards that will copper-fasten matters and ensure that the environmental component will be centre stage?
I realise there are a few points where consultation is required and that is something, but it is not quite enough. I am particularly concerned about the buyout, biofuel standards and European-level reporting on greenhouse gases. These are the areas that concern me vis-à-vis the transfer of powers. I apologise for the length of my contribution but this is a very large group of amendments.
Amendments Nos.1, 21 to 29 and 31 to 34, inclusive, relate to the transfer of renewable transport fuel functions from the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to the Minister for Transport, as set out in Part 3 and, inter alia, under section 18, the power of the Minister for Transport to make regulations concerning the functions under Part 5A of the Act, which is the renewable transport fuel obligation, RTFO.
I advise Senator Higgins and others that I do not propose to accept these amendments. Accepting any of them would inhibit the Minister for Transport in the performance of functions relating to the RTFO following the transfer of legal vires for the renewable transport fuels on the vesting day. The House should note that the policy responsibility for the RTFO has been with the Minister for Transport since January 2021. The Minister for Transport has set out in a policy statement covering the period 2021 to 2023, which is currently being reviewed and updated, a suite of policy measures required to implement transport sector climate action plan targets and to ensure compliance with the European requirements under the renewable energy directive and under Article 7A of the fuel quality directive.
These amendments, if accepted, would remove the ability of the Minister for Transport to introduce secondary legislation to implement all of the policy measures developed in consultation with the stakeholders. The proposed amendments would add a degree of complexity to the arrangement of the legal powers for delivery of renewable transport fuels policy, which would not align with the principles of effective regulation. From an external stakeholder perspective and for the agency administering the obligation, this could not be viewed as optimal.
The provisions under Part 3 closely follow legal precedent for the transfer of functions, including, for completeness, the transfer of property and so on, to the Minister for Transport. In terms of precedent in this regard, I refer Senators to the transfer of functions provisions in the Radiological Protection (Amendment) Act of 2018. The provisions of the Bill appropriately align the policy responsibility of the Minister for Transport with the regulatory and compliance enforcement powers relating to the RTFO. The protocols for consultation by the Minister for Transport with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and other specified Ministers and agencies are also appropriate.
One of the amendments seeks to prevent the Minister from consulting with himself or herself.
The way this will be implemented is that it will be necessary for the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to delegate the function of statutory consultee to a Minister of State to avoid consulting the same person. That will have to be done by delegation order, which is a normal thing to do, as I am sure the Senator is aware. Its purpose is to avoid the type of situation to which she referred.
The delegation order is a little strange. It seems like a retrospective way of amending something that would not normally be done. If the Minister has already been effectively consulted, unless there is a specific remit for a Minister of State, it is hard to see how it will work. I understand the reasoning. I have tried to bring in requirements, for example, for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to consult the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage. Such consultation would usually apply where there is a dedicated Minister of State and there would be a reason for doing so. I can see what the fix is but it seems to me that a cleaner fix would be to accept the amendment. However, if it takes going around the houses to avoid doing that, so be it.
With absolute respect to the Minister of State, my concerns are not really addressed by his response. He described the transfer of powers and how powers move around. The fundamental point regarding biofuels, for instance, which is crucial and will be a huge issue in terms of land use and environmental justice over the next period, was not really addressed. Regarding the buyout clauses, we can look to the policies, which is fine, but legislation is what we deal with here. I am not sure why the buyout clauses are there. I may seek to remove them altogether by way of amendment on Report Stage. I am signalling that intention now because the case needs to be made for them and that case cannot be made solely as a transport need. It needs to be made on an environmental basis as well.
Will the Minister of State address the specific issue of why a power to prosecute is being removed? Why not have both Ministers retain the power to prosecute? There are transport concerns that may arise in regard to renewable fuels, biofuels or tampered fuels and their impact on transport, but there are also significant environmental reasons that there may be a desire to prosecute certain actions, such as false labelling and failure to meet standards in terms of the percentage in respect of renewable fuels. There are a lot of environmental reasons for action as well as many transport reasons.
Reference was made to complexity. What we are doing is complex and I certainly do not think avoiding complexity is good. If we start from that position, we will strip everything down to the basics. Optimal is not necessarily about taking a minimal approach and looking to the minimal level. Optimal is about ensuring good decisions are made as early as possible and with the right input at the beginning. It is like the efficiency versus effectiveness argument back in the day. Efficiency is good if it gets us there fast, but effectiveness is the actual goal for all of us in our political policies. When it comes to ensuring effective regulation of the area of renewable fuels and transport, it is important to have a strong and stringent enforcement component. Having the double failsafe of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Minister for Transport acting on something as crucial as prosecution makes sense because it is more effective, which is ultimately what we want.
I regret that the Minister of State is not able to accept these amendments. The prosecution issue needs to be examined. There may be good cases for opt-outs and the buying out of obligations but they should be rare. I am not confident there is no risk in the transfer of these powers. I would appreciate an opportunity for the Department to give information on biofuels and what the safeguards and policies are in that regard. I thank the Minister of State for outlining the 2021 policies of the Minster for Transport. Of course, a new Minister may introduce new policies. It would be good to see what the policies and safeguards are in respect of biofuels before we go to Report Stage.
The overarching goal we are trying to achieve in transferring functions is to ensure all the responsibility to reduce emissions does not remain with a single Minister. Climate change and emissions reduction are not considered to be solely the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. That is why we are transferring functions and saying to all Ministers they have responsibility for the sectoral emissions ceilings in their area. We are saying they cannot just continue with their normal policies and say the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications should find some way to reduce emissions within their particular sector. That is why the Minister for Transport, for example, will have powers around the biofuel mix and so on. That is the overall goal.
Did the Senator request a briefing from the Department?
It would be helpful to have a briefing on the biofuel issue, in particular, and the buyout clauses.
I have just consulted my departmental staff. They would be happy to brief the Senator on that.
I thank the Minister of State.
How stands the Senator's amendment?
I will say a few words in conclusion, if I may, because once the group is dealt with, I cannot speak further on these amendments. As a member of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, I am conscious of how Departments are keen to push all the responsibilities in this area onto other Departments. The climate issue is crucial and we are torn between aiming for the ideal, which is every Department taking full responsibility, and a more practical approach. The safety net to my mind is the both-and approach. I will come back to the issue of prosecutions on Report Stage. If both Ministers have responsibility, that is one thing, whereas if it is either-or, we have a scenario whereby a future Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, who may or not be a member of the Green Party, for instance, is able to say it is out of his or her remit. On something as crucial as this, a doubling up of potential prosecution and enforcement is important. I am keen for Departments to step up and take their responsibilities seriously. However, I am more keen for our emissions to reduce in the next five to ten years than I am to engage in any long pedagogical project or something like that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 18 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(VI) the Climate Change Advisory Council,".
Amendment No. 2 seeks to provide that when making regulations under section 44D of the 2007 Act, as I mentioned previously in respect of biofuels and crop caps, which are very much a land use issue rather than a transport issue, as well as consulting the bodies already prescribed under the proposed paragraph (b), the Minister would also consult the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC. This is a crucial issue because land use is such a fundamental part of the achievement not only of Ireland's climate targets but also the collective global effort in respect of climate change.
It is a crucial issue. The Climate Change Advisory Council would be able to give suitable guidance on the aspect of section 44D that relates to biofuel.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to provide that the Minister, when making regulations under subsection (1B) of section 44G and when consulting the bodies already prescribed, must also consult the Climate Change Advisory Council, again for similar reasons. Amendment No. 6 seeks to provide that before making regulations under section 44GA, the Minister shall, in addition to consulting the bodies already prescribed, consult the Climate Change Advisory Council. These basic amendments look to the Climate Change Advisory Council, which is in a position to keep a single issue to the fore, that is, Ireland's achievement of its climate targets and carbon budgets, within which all policy must operate. We have five-year budgets. The sectoral targets that flow from these must also be to the fore. Including the council, which is not focusing on multiple competing issues such as transport demands and hubs but on a single very important issue, that is, the impact in terms of our climate targets, would result in a very useful perspective in the making of all the regulations. I realise the Environmental Protection Agency is included but it is dealing with many other issues – for example, the many toxic components of fuel, the impact of fuel on the environment, and public health. The Climate Change Advisory Council would have something very specific to bring.
I am going to speak to amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 18 together. I examined these proposals carefully to understand their implications because I appreciate what the Senators are trying to achieve, but I do not propose to accept them. The Bill provides that the Minister for Transport, in making the regulations under sections 44D, 44G(1B) and 44GA, shall consult the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, and may consult such other persons as he or she considers appropriate. The Bill also provides that the Minister for Transport, in considering matters under sections 44G(1B), 44GA and 44Y must take account of the impact these measures have on carbon budgets and sectoral emission ceilings under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Therefore, I believe the Bill's provisions are broad enough to address adequately the requirement for comprehensive consultation by the Minister for Transport.
The high-level broad consultation provisions for the Government to consult the Climate Change Advisory Council are considered appropriate to the role of the council as included in the extant provisions of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Therefore, I do not agree with making the amendments proposed by the Senators.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(VI) the Climate Change Advisory Council,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(iv) the potential impacts on biodiversity, the environment and public health;".
Amendment No. 4 is also to give assurance because, along with the transfer of powers, there is no sufficient nuancing of the Minister's mandate to make things very clear, besides the fact that the Government has obligations under the climate action plan. The mandate for making regulations is not as clear as it might be, which is a concern.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to provide that when making regulations under the proposed subsection (1B) of section 44G, the Minister must have regard to the potential impacts of such regulations on biodiversity, the environment and public health. The Minister, in making regulations, can consider the energy and climate plans, carbon budgets, fuel prices in the State and other factors, but the factors that are missing include the impact on biodiversity. Biofuels have an extraordinarily significant impact on biodiversity. We are aware of the impact on flora and fauna in Indonesia of the move towards palm oil, for example. We are also aware of the impact of biofuel production in and around the Amazon area. Closer to home, including Ireland, there are limits to biofuel capacity.
This is also the question of the percentages of renewable fuels and so forth. This matter is wider than carbon targets and is about the environment more widely and, crucially, public health. We are aware that inadequate provision for clean fuels in transport has considerable public health impacts. The Minister of State will be aware of studies that show that although there is a very low rate of car ownership in city centres, public health in city centres is extremely negatively affected by fossil fuels and inadequate and inappropriate transport fuels. A study by the young scientists examined the impact of cars, including exhaust fumes, on schools. The public health matters are significant and should also be considered in the making of regulations.
Amendment No. 5 requires, in respect of subsection (1B) of section 44G, the consideration of public health matters. Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide that when making regulations under the proposed subsection 44GA(2), the Minister shall have regard, again, to the potential effects on biodiversity, the environment and public health. The proposed subsection 44GA(1) states the Minister for Transport may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, make regulations specifying a particular petroleum product in respect of which the Minister for Transport may prescribe a minimum percentage volume of renewable transport fuel. There is an obligation to consult the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. There is scope to consult the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. On one side, consent is being sought; on the other, it is consultation. In both cases, the key point concerning renewable transport fuels and minimum percentages is that public health, biodiversity and the environment should be key considerations.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to provide that when making regulations under subsection 44GA(2), the Minister shall have regard to the potential impact on public health, including in respect of air pollution. I specified air pollution in particular because my proposal will have a direct impact on it. I am referring to the regulation of the quality and content of transport emissions.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to provide that when making a determination under section 44Y, which is the section that allows the Minister for Transport to allow that oil stocks might be released by the National Oil Reserves Agency “in a case of particular urgency in order to avoid, or mitigate against, a major supply disruption or the risk thereof”, this would have an impact on the determination of biodiversity, the environment and public health. Again, when we are looking to the release of oil stocks, the fact there is a significant unmet demand for oil should not be the sole factor that is considered and it is important there is a balancing. Of course, these are scenarios where we are looking to authorise this release. They are not good situations but, in those situations, it is vital the risks as well as the demand are considered and that the risks in terms of biodiversity and public health are also considered.
I note that section 44Y has an urgency component to it and that the Minister is not consulting as widely as he is consulting in regard to some other provisions in the Act. That is why, if the Minister is not consulting the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and so forth in regard to that determination, he should at least be trying to consider those issues in-house, as it were.
On amendment No. 20, I do not believe there is a doubling up on my references to biodiversity and the environment and the fact the climate targets and carbon budgets are there. I believe the environment and biodiversity are wider considerations. However, in case that was construed or taken as the position of the Government, in amendments Nos. 15 and 20 I have put forward a version of the same amendment where I have taken out biodiversity and the environment, reluctantly, and left in solely the issue of public health, because I think the issue of public health is one which is very commonly agreed to be immediately affected by the use of fossil fuels and inappropriate fuels. Even if there was a reluctance to take on board the environment or biodiversity, or if there was a false expectation that the fact of the climate action Bill being there covers those issues, the public health issue is clearly not covered at all currently, even though it is very directly affected by these sets of decision-making processes. Amendments Nos. 15 and 20 are basically material alternatives to amendments Nos. 14 and 19, but just focused on the public health aspect.
I note the Senator's consideration of the potential for biodiversity and other public health impacts within the context of debate on renewable transport fuels, and I believe these considerations have already been provided for in the drafting of the Bill. In sections 44G(1B) and 44GA, it provides that the Minister for Transport “may have regard to such other matters as he or she considers appropriate relating to the effects, if any, of increased consumption of renewable transport fuel in the State on economic activities in the State and on the environment”. In my view, biodiversity, public health and air pollution are covered by the word “environment”.
Regarding section 14 and the exemption from the biofuel blending provision in the Bill, this would only be applied in the very limited circumstances of an urgent emergency release of oil reserve stock that cannot be blended due to the urgency. It is a short-term measure to alleviate an imminent energy shortage, an outlier event and one which would also potentially have an effect on human health but which should not give rise to systemic or long-term impacts. As a result, I do not agree to accept the amendments proposed.
Again, I note the economic issues are placed first, which could well trump anything else. Simply saying the Minister “may” consider additional economic issues or environmental issues is not the same thing. I would have to respectfully disagree with the point that these issues have been dealt with in the drafting because the drafting simply provides that a Minister for Transport can decide to think about biodiversity or the environment if he or she really wants to, and there is absolutely no obligation on him or her to do so. I note that public health is not covered by the economic or environmental consideration and that is why I have those separate amendments in respect of public health.
In regard to the short-term component, I would reserve the right to come back to address that issue in terms of the exemption in cases of particular urgency and the fact of that being a short-term measure. We would hope it would be a short-term measure but we have had emergencies that have lasted six months, eight months, a year and even two years. We are in a situation where, in terms of climate change, according to who one is talking to, we have five to ten years to turn it around. Therefore, every year matters, and every year of the next five to ten years matters profoundly. I indicate now that I may come back on Report Stage for further clarification around what constitutes a short-term measure whereby we decide we are going to allow for this use of oil and the exemption from renewable standards. I can certainly see a situation where, by using that economic argument, it gets pushed out for months and months, if not years and years. I will come back on that.
I regret that the Minister of State is not able to accept these amendments but I will have to press them.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(iv) the potential impact on public health, including in respect of air pollution;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(iv) the Climate Change Advisory Council,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 13, inclusive, 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 11, line 18, to delete “him or her,” and substitute “him or her.”.
These are technical amendments to section 11 to resolve a formatting issue in the labelling of subsections within the section. They are minor drafting corrections within the Bill to ensure clarity. They have been remedied with the assistance of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, for which I am grateful.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 11, line 19, to delete “(c) the Minister” and substitute the following:
“(3) The Minister”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 11, line 20, to delete “paragraph (b)” and substitute “subsection (2)(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 11, line 21, to delete “modification, and” and substitute “modification.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 11, line 22, to delete “(d) when making” and substitute the following:
“(4) When making”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 11, line 24, to delete “(i) the effect” and substitute the following:
“(a) the effect”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 11, line 25, to delete “(ii) the information” and substitute the following:
“(b) the information”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 11, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(iii) the potential impacts on biodiversity, the environment and public health;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 11, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(iii) the potential impact on public health, including in respect of air pollution;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 11, line 27, to delete “(iii) the integrated” and substitute the following:
“(c) the integrated”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 11, line 33, to delete “(iv) carbon budgets” and substitute the following:
“(d) carbon budgets”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, line 1, after “Minister” to insert “, the Climate Change Advisory Council”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 13, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“(ii) the potential impacts on biodiversity, the environment and public health;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 13, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“(ii) the potential impact on public health, including in respect of air pollution;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 14, line 21, after “may” to insert “, subject to consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 14, line 23, to delete “44D,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 14, line 25, to delete “44J”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 14, line 25, to delete “44X”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 14, line 26, after “may” to insert “, subject to consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 14, line 27, to delete “44D,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 14, line 28, to delete “44J”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(3) In making regulations or orders made under this section in respect of—
(a) rates of renewable transport fuel obligation,
(b) advanced biofuel obligation,
(c) crop cap,
(d) high ILUC-risk biofuel, or
(e) renewable transport fuel standards,
the Minister shall consult with—
(i) the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications,
(ii) the Environmental Protection Agency,
(iii) the National Standards Authority of Ireland,
(iv) the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, and
(v) the Climate Change Advisory Council.”.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, line 34, after “the” where it secondly occurs to insert “Minister, the”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 19 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 16, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(c) a disclosure of the greenhouse gas emissions, in tonnes, caused by its activities within the State for which the company is responsible, and the measures already taken and planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during future reporting periods.”.
This seeks to require that, under the new section 69:
(3) For the purposes of the register, each oil company shall, within one month of a request in that behalf by the Minister and, in any event not later than 30 July in each year, furnish, in a manner prescribed, the following to the Minister:
[...]
(c) a disclosure of the greenhouse gas emissions, in tonnes, caused by its activities within the State for which the company is responsible, and the measures already taken and planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during future reporting periods.
This amends the section that requires oil companies to furnish relevant information. There have been considerable international examples of the difficulties in obtaining transparent and appropriate information on emissions from various oil companies. This amendment would be useful in increasing the transparency of the information that is given. My colleague, Senator Ruane, has proposed legislation on improving the transparency of large corporations in respect of their carbon emissions. This amendment is part of the general move towards greater accountability and transparency. It is an appropriate enhancement of the State's powers as well as the transparency of oil companies within the State.
I thank the Senator for her amendment. I appreciate what she is seeking to achieve, but I do not propose to accept the amendment. This is an oil emergency Bill, and section 21 amends the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007 in the context of planning for and responding to an oil emergency. Although there is merit in requiring oil companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions as well as measures that are taken and planned to be taken to reduce such emissions, doing so would be outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, I do not propose to include such provisions.
Any emergency Bill needs to exist within the context of the climate emergency. High-profile figures in the oil industry have spoken about their bumper years and infinite future. Once there are emergencies that cause demand, they will be happy to go forever. They are looking at brand new oil fields around the world even though we know we need to keep oil in the ground.
In any emergency, we should look to the calculation and intersection of multiple risks. It is appropriate that information be available when we are considering an oil emergency and that we do not pretend the oil is just floating in space. Or, rather, we should acknowledge that we are on a planet that is floating in space and recognise that decisions made in respect of oil stocks and their usage are not just supply and demand decisions, but decisions on intersecting and, in some cases, contrary risks. Having more information on the activities of oil companies in the State - and, indeed, those companies' knowledge that they simply do not have to wait for the next emergency or the next big demand surge to make the kind of bumper profits they have made in recent years - would be appropriate. We should be looking for it.
I am disappointed by the general lack of desire, not just from the Minister of State now, but from the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, when the NORA legislation was before the Seanad in 2020. There was a reluctance to strengthen our powers, to increase transparency in any way or to put anyone with environmental expertise on NORA’s board. If we are serious about the climate change challenge, I do not know why we are not trying to address it in every forum and with every tool at our disposal.
We must adjourn the debate. I thank the Minister of State, his officials and Senators.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.