Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I rise to underline some of the elements from the pre-legislative scrutiny report that would strengthen the Bill but are strong enough in the legislation as written. When the committee considering the matter, it highlighted important things in relation to the governance framework, sustainability, environmental, social and governance factors, divestment from fossil fuels, prohibition of fossil fuels and requirements to invest in sustainability, renewable energy and Irish wind. I look at things like section 74, in which the language in the legislation states that it may take into account environmental, social and governance factors. That "may take into account" is sandwiched between much "shall invest" and "shall comply". We know that the language of "may" is very weak in legislative and judicial terms and does not really create any strong obligation. Equally, section 75 talks about taking into account. Again, this is not the "shall" or the "must" that we see in other elements of the legislation.

It is important to underline the need for these investments to be sustainable into the future. As is often said at climate change protests, there are no jobs on a dead planet. There is no need for a pension if climate change is going to eradicate society as we know it or if it is going to cause such disturbance that pension pots are essentially worthless because runaway climate change has destroyed the economy as well as destroying the planet and livelihoods. It is about investing in sustainable energy in a way that is not supporting the fossil fuel industry. I would argue it is essential for prudent investment, ensuring that there is a future in which people who have been automatically enrolled can actually claim their pensions. I would underline the need for these kinds of things.

There is a wider conversation to be had here. As has been said by other speakers, we are looking at the future Ireland fund. We need similar rules and similar thinking there. We are talking about the need for long-term thinking. Many people here have spoken about the need to think about the long term. For many people I know, it is hard to think in that way because of the crushing reality of climate change. We need to look at this Bill is a climate-positive way. That "may take account of" or "have regard to" needs to be a "must" or "shall". There needs to be much tougher, stronger language to ensure that the State's aims and money are reflected in the investment portfolio and, equally, that the investment portfolio will have a chance to mature and that people will have a chance to get to an age where they can claim a pension because society has not been undermined by climate change. These are absolutes that have to happen. We need to strengthen the language in the Bill in that regard.

See this speech in context