Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague, Deputy Pringle for introducing this motion. It was a privilege to sign it along with my colleague, Deputy Joan Collins. I will deal with the Government's response presently. We are seeking in this very specific motion to amend the Bill Deputy Pringle pushed through the Dáil in 2018. In a few days, it will be five years since his Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill became law. We were hailed as the first country in the world to make provision in that regard. Earlier this morning, the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, talked about her pride in that and in being able to share it on an international basis. That is very welcome. This motion gives her an opportunity to be even prouder of our actions on this issue.

As I said, the motion is very specific in expanding the remit of the 2018 Act from prohibiting direct investments to prohibiting indirect investments as well and, very importantly, supporting the fossil fuel divestment contract that is being pushed by a number of countries. I listened carefully to the Minister of State's speech. I am not sure whether the Government agreeing not to oppose a motion is worse than its opposing it. It might be more honest if the Government were to oppose this motion. While the Minister of State welcomed it and described her pride in it, the reality is that the Government has failed to carry out a review of the 2018 legislation in the past five years and to ask whether it was functioning effectively and doing what it set out to do. Indeed, we and Deputy Pringle had to do that research, assisted by ActionAid, Trócaire and other excellent organisations that keep us educated. The Government has not told us how things have been working.

The Government is saying out of one side of its mouth that it will amend the 2018 Act. We are asking it to make provision for a regular review. Out of the other side of its mouth, the Government tells us about the difficulties and that the changes would interfere with the commercial mandate of ISIF's investment policies. Imagine that. It seems the commercial mandate will trump our obligations on fossil fuel divestment. At least that is the interpretation I take from what I am hearing. Forgive me for being cynical but my experience in here has copper-fastened my cynicism. The message seems to be that we must not interfere with ISIF's commercial mandate.

The Minister of State went on to tell us that ISIF is a very reliable and responsible investor that works towards sustainability and responsibility. Let me give a little background to the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018. I previously sat on the Committee of Public Accounts. I pay tribute to Conor O'Kelly, former chief executive of the NTMA, under whose remit ISIF comes. On 21 July 2016, when he appeared before the committee, there was no question of fossil fuel or tobacco divestment. Mr. O'Kelly appeared before the committee again on 12 July 2018, at the same time as Deputy Pringle's Bill was passing through the House. That very honest and direct man put his hands up and told the Committee of Public Accounts that the NTMA had not thought about the issue but he would go away and think about it. That is exactly what he did. I have the greatest respect for him. He went away and thought about it, after which the NTMA started to divest.

The Minister of State has given the up-to-date information. However, we are not being told what the Government intends to do about the issues. We have been told about the problems, and I agree there are problems and that we should work together. What is the timeframe for that in view of the COP28 result today, which was an utter cop-out? Power, privilege and profit were what drove the whole thing right through the night and into the morning. There is a distinction between phasing out fossil fuels and having a transition phase. Power, privilege and profit rule as the world burns. In the words of the Taoiseach, the world is burning.

I have no disagreement with the Rural Independent Group and I wish those Members would look at the connection between this side of the House and theirs. We want sustainable farming, a thriving rural community, sustainable development and investment in recyclables. I absolutely agree there are problems with the way that is being done, without community involvement and without something going back to the community in terms of ownership. I have raised that point repeatedly on the floor of the House. The Rio de Janeiro summit took place as long ago as 1992. Here we are in 2023 with a cop-out from COP. Yet we are taking pride in it. I cannot do so while the world burns. It is the most basic request that the legislation be expanded to allow us to catch indirect investments.

See this speech in context