Legal opinion “completely refutes Government case” on money message for Climate Emergency Bill says TD
TDs call for Climate Bill to move on to next stage.
Briefing with cross party TDs to be held tomorrow
Bríd Smith TD has urged the Government to drop its blocking of her Climate Emergency Bill after legal advice strongly refutes claims the Bill would involve an appropriation of public monies.
Following a briefing tomorrow with other TDs she intends to make a case before the Ceann Comhairle that his office has essentially been misled by the Minister and Government about the implications of the bill.
Deputy Smith claimed that the legal opinion demolished the Ministers claims that there was a cost involved.
She said: “The minister has tried to claim that the state would have to repay application and rental fees paid by the companies affected and that it would need legal advice as well. This opinion makes it clear that this is nonsense. There is no obligation on the state to compensate licence holders if the law changes and claims about legal fees are spurious.”
The key sections of the opinion provided states that:
“the Minister (and by extension) the Ceann Comhairle were incorrect in the central premise that there is any automatic right to a licence pursuant to the Act of 1960. I think they are further incorrect in the belief that the Bill will lead to a species of claims by frustrated licence holders or the beneficiaries of undertakings. It is my considered view therefore that the four categories of expenditure identified do not, in fact, arise from the Bill and that the Bill does not require a money message.”
“that the “Licencing Terms for Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Development & Production 2007” includes a provision which allows the suspension of any licence activities indefinitely and in the Minister’s sole discretion “in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury…the environment.” In other words the holder of a licence (or the beneficiary of an undertaking) already holds a licence or an undertaking subject to a condition which gives the Minister the power to prevent any further petroleum related activities in the interests of preventing environmental damage. In those circumstances such a holder or beneficiary could not, as a matter of first principles and entirely irrespective of the Bill, plead an argument based on legitimate expectation or breach of contract if forced to suspend indefinitely petroleum activities.”
