Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Pearse Doherty has supplied some notes on the legislation to me. I welcome the Bill and the work done by Deputy Pringle. We support amendment No. 1. I also welcome the words from the Minister of State that, in general, he would be supportive of it. However, when he went into the detail, I felt there was a bit of a drawback from that. One thing that strikes me immediately is when the Minister refers to small and medium-sized businesses. We had issues with fracking in the north west. Licences were issued to small companies that came off the shelves. The idea was that these would be developed and then taken over by the bigger ones. That is the trend across the world - never mind in Ireland. The Minister said that there could be a risk of small companies being negatively affected. Small companies are simply pawns in this game that is being played by the bigger players. Anyone who takes an objective view of this will realise that.

Deputy Pringle mentioned that there was a lot of symbolism around the broad thrust of what we are doing but symbolism is very important. I know that, from the beginning, it was Trócaire that basically pushed this with many parties and individuals in order to ensure that Ireland would clearly be seen as a place that is lighting a flame and saying that this is the way forward and that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. It is also in line with the UN sustainable development goals and many things to which Ireland has signed up.

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Pringle is excellent and takes care of many of the issues that were raised previously. The definition of "fossil fuels", which includes fuels intended for use in the production of energy by combustion, goes a very long way to meet any concerns people might have about unintended consequences. It must be taken alongside the flexibility criteria that have already been added. Together, these elements positively and carefully address concerns while maintaining the spirit of the Bill. We have to wonder if anybody opposing these elements is in fact playing matters tactically in order to neuter the Bill while trying to appear as if they are in favour of it.

It is ironic that the Minister for Finance told the Committee on Budgetary Oversight yesterday that he would come back with figures indicating how large will be the EU will levy in respect of the State failing to meet its emissions targets while, today, this committee is trying to limit the effect of a Bill that is a direct consequence of that. It is not good economics in the long term if we do not move ahead with this.

We think that many of the Minister of State's and Deputy Michael McGrath's amendments are about limiting the usefulness of the Bill. Other issues are covered by the new section proposed by Deputy Pringle. We accept amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 because they are technical in nature and concern drafting issues. In respect of their being compatible with the new section proposed by Deputy Pringle, I am sure changes can be made at a later stage.

We are openminded about amendment No. 4. The definition proposed by Deputy Pringle talks about activity that is not an incidental or marginal part of the business while the Minister of State proposes the word "mainly" replacing the word "partly" in the original text. On balance, Deputy Pringle's amendment seems tighter. Deputy Pringle's amendment is a substantive one. Passing it would allow for amendment on further Stages. Amendment No. 1 covers practically everything, so if we could get it through, we would expect the rest to fall.

The Minister of State's amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, are covered by the new definition in amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are designed to limit the effect of the Bill and we oppose them. Amendments Nos. 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are technical amendments and they are stylistic in their approach. Amendment No. 10 from the Minister of State seeks to delete the phrase "direct or indirect". This is putting a horse and cart through the Bill and we are opposed to it.

We hope amendment No. 1 will pass and that the other amendments will fall as a result of that. The Minister of State has said he will come back on later Stages if he has better suggestions.

Deputy McGrath's amendment No. 14 is mainly covered in amendment No. 1 and, in any case, excluding SMEs completely goes too far. As I said at the outset, SMEs are usually used as a means for big companies to come in under the radar. Section 16 is covered in amendment No. 1.

The position is that Deputy Pringle's amendment No. 1 represents a fair attempt for taking on board the suggestions and concerns of all sides, including Sinn Féin, and it should be supported and all other amendments withdrawn so that there will be a clearer vision on the next Stage. We ask the Minister of State to continue to engage, not on the basis of trying to subvert the primary purpose of the Bill but on the basis of dealing with genuine concerns and technical issues.