Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Pringle for bringing forward this motion. The principle on which this motion is based, which is increased fossil fuel divestment, is certainly one I fully support. While, unfortunately, the final document from COP28 falls far short of calling for the phasing out of fossil fuels, it does call for an irreversible and accelerated transition from fossil fuels. At a global level, that is positive.

This motion is not just worthy but is also timely. It is a follow-on from a Private Members' motion put forward by Deputy Pringle in 2016, which became the 2018 Act. That Act had the impact of Ireland becoming a global leader in the context of divesting public money from fossil fuel resources and assets. Deputy Pringle is to be congratulated for his work in this area. However, the motion proposes that we need to move further and to close some of the loopholes that still allow investment in fossil fuel use.

The 2018 Act was principally concerned with fossil fuel exploration, and its impact has been positive. We can see that because, according to the motion, in January 2023 "Irish financial institutions held US$13.2 million in bonds and shares attributable to fossil fuels in the Global South, of this the ISIF held US$11.2 million, mostly in bonds issued by Chinese electric utility company State Grid Corporation of China", as well as over $12 million "in bonds and shares attributable to agribusiness in the Global South". We can see that despite the good intent of the Bill, there were certainly loopholes that were being exploited.

The 2023 Action Aid report proposed that the Government would consider the scope of the 2018 Act and that the Act would be amended to go beyond divestment in fossil fuel undertakings and include divestment in fossil fuel use. This, of course, is the more difficult part because we all use fossil fuels. The question is how far we go. Many businesses and companies depend, to different degrees, on the use of fossil fuels. Sectors such as transport, industry, agriculture, international tourism and food imports and exports have such a dependence so we must be careful as to what we include in the scope of this proposal. Deputy Pringle is including agribusiness and agrichemical companies. "Agribusiness" is a general term and a paragraph in the motion fully describes "industrial agriculture".

Included in this definition are the phrases "mechanised farming" and "commodity crops destined for export". This is open to some interpretation and would need to be refined. I would also note that corporations that control and profit from almost every step of the process are called agribusinesses. I have no issue with that at all but equally, there are small and large corporations. Are they all included? Could that, for example, include Tirlán, the Kerry Group or Lakeland Dairies? Is the definition driven by who makes the profit, by the negative impacts of the industry in terms of fossil fuel usage or by the greenhouse gas emissions from the business or agribusiness? This is an important distinction. The issue of who makes the real profits in the agrifood chain is a massively important one but this is not the place to deal with it. It certainly does need to be dealt with but not here. We need to concentrate on the negative impacts of the industry in terms of fossil fuel usage and also in the context of the greenhouse gas emissions from whatever business is concerned.

All of these matters have to be teased out and the scope of any proposed Bill has to be made clearer. However, as I said at the beginning, the principle on which this proposal is based is a sound one and I am happy to support it.

See this speech in context