Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

People talk about the great depression. If they had listened to my contribution, they would have heard that I did not say the Government was against what they were trying to achieve. We actually complimented them on what they were trying to do. We actually agree with them. However, it would take away the flexibility of ISIF in investing money on behalf of the country. It has other responsibilities. It is not its only function when it comes to tackling climate change and fossil fuels; it has a duty to invest our money and get a return for the country.

Government policy is different and covers a wide range of activities.

We are committed to tackling climate change. In fact, one of my youngest colleagues drives an electric car and sets an example. Deputy Connolly referred to leadership. That is what we are trying to show. I do not want people to leave the Chamber believing that we are all at odds. We are not. However, the wording of the Bill could prevent investment in certain key companies that want to change their ways, of which Bord Na Móna is a prime example. That is probably due to the way the Bill has been drafted.

Deputy Pringle has the votes to pass Second Stage of the Bill and, therefore, it will proceed to Committee Stage on which we can tease out these parts of the Bill if that is what he wants to do. However, Deputies should not give me or the Government a lecture and tell us that we are not doing anything.

Some Deputies were not here for the start of the debate. I outlined where money is being invested and what ISIF is doing with our money. There is a policy to divest where it can, but it takes time to change. The wording of the Bill constrains ISIF too much and will not help it to do its job properly, that is, to invest money on behalf of the country.

It is not a case of not wanting to do anything or not agreeing with Deputy Pringle. I buy into what is proposed. I am a total believer, and I think Deputies know it is something I want to achieve. However, this Bill is not the way to do that. That is all we are saying.

I compliment Deputy Pringle. He making a genuine attempt to deal with the issue and I know what he is trying to do. We will work with him on Committee Stage to see whether we can improve the Bill and get it to a stage whereby we can make changes that the Deputy might accept and vice versain order that it would become something we can support. In its current form, we cannot do that. I outlined all the reasons, on behalf of the Department of Finance, that is the case. Supporting the Bill is not the right thing to do on behalf of the country.

That does not mean we are opposed to tackling climate change, changing our ways and investing in key areas of renewable energy. We want to do those things and I totally believe in such changes. I spent time in Güssing in Austria. I saw what could be done in small towns and villages which would have an impact. I ask everybody here to become involved in the discussion we will have over the next eight months on Ireland 2040, our new national planning framework which will set out the future of the country. There will be a chance during that discussion to debate this issue and put in place plans to deliver infrastructure at a local and national levels to address climate change, drive renewable energies, make them acceptable and get buy in from communities. We all have a role to play.

I heard somebody say people do not object to solar farms, but they do and I have seen it happen. I have had to work with such people. All of us have a lot of work to do in order to get buy-in for investment in renewable energy projects. I could list all such projects. I have been involved in projects for a long time and have seen people approach these things in a positive and negative way. It is not as simple as saying that if one is against the Bill one is opposed to tackling climate change. That is not true, and it is not fair to say that. I doubt Deputy Pringle would take that line because he knows it is not true. If he does, that is his choice.

I have taken note of everyone's comments and we will see what happens in a couple of months' time when we debate water infrastructure, the future of water and the polluter pays principle, in terms of trying to preserve water. We will see who agrees that we should charge people who waste water. Nearly everybody who spoke during the debate and tried to lecture me, and condemned my speech and the Government, is opposed to any kind of water charges or contribution which would prevent water being wasted.

There is a lot more to this debate than picking one line out of a contribution. One cannot pick and choose parts of the debate. The Government has a whole-of-Government approach to try to tackle water across a range of areas, including the conservation of water. I will not take lectures from people who try to pick and choose the battles that suit them because there is a lot more to this than the debate on this Bill.

I want to be very clear. Deputy Collins asked a specific question on investment in extraction companies. They are historic investments which we are divesting, something which has happened and will continue to happen. We are not investing in such companies now; they are historical investments. The ISIF fund is not investing in such companies and I want her to understand that.

We have investments in companies that people may not regard as promoting renewable energy, but such companies have strategies to develop renewable energy targets and move away from fossil fuels. They are companies in which we can and do invest. We can use our investments to move that agenda forward. I know what the Bill is trying to do, but it may have other consequences which could reduce investment in certain companies that have an agenda of moving away from fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy.

See this speech in context