Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members who spoke in favour of the Bill. It is great that the Bill has the support of the Green Party, the Social Democrats, Fianna Fail, Sinn Féin, AAA-PBP and my colleagues in Independents 4 Change. It is very heartening and shows that the Bill will pass Second Stage and proceed to Committee Stage, on which we can have a wider discussion about all these issues and examine whether the Bill needs to be amended in order to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed, some of which were genuine in terms of the potential impacts of divestment on some semi-State companies.

NGOs are looking forward to the opportunity to make presentations to the committee at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage in order to ensure that we have a Bill that is as robust as possible at the end of Committee Stage and during all other Stages. That is very important and welcome, and it is great that we can achieve that.

A lot has been said about attacking so-called new politics and the situation that has arisen. However, this Bill would never have passed Second Stage in the previous Dáil because the Government had the numbers to block anything it wanted to. Some very important Bills that passed Second Stage, such as a referendum on the public ownership of water, would never have passed Second Stage during the previous Dáil. In the previous Dáil a Government Deputy would probably not have been allowed to put forward a Bill on fracking. That change is very positive and shows that things can change in the House.

I wish to respond to the Minister of State's opening statement. He circulated a note in regard to his closing remarks. It is amazing that he was able to pre-empt the entire discussion and have such a document ready for submission immediately.

In his opening statement, the Minister of State said we have a dependence on fossil fuels for our energy and transport needs. That is the whole point. We have a dependence on fossil fuels, and we need to take the decision to move away from that approach. I take on board what the Minister of State said about not being restrictive regarding the NTMA and that we have plans. What about our 2020 plan? We will miss our targets on that by a country mile because there is no obligation on us to achieve them. That is the problem and we need the Bill to ensure there is an obligation for divestment to take place.

The Minister of State went on to say that continued investment in fossil fuel related technologies and businesses is a necessity. It is not, and we have to wake up and smell the coffee in terms of the decisions we have to take. We have to take what may be brave decisions, but they are symbolic and set out a path for the country terms of moving to a fossil fuel free society and start. We have to have the weight of legislation behind that in order to make it happen.

Some of the Minister of State's other statements on the NTMA and the ISIF were very worrying. He said ISIF is actively considering the investment case for companies that may not be aligned with the transition. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward. We cannot have a strategy that proposes ISIF divest from fossil fuel companies but retains flexibility.

See this speech in context