Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Cathaoirleach repeat the group we are dealing with?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) The Agency may, in consultation with a Minister of the Government having functions in relation to a sector of the economy, develop proposals for investment in that sector in order to support economic activity and employment.”.

This amendment seeks to amend section 7 by providing that in developing an investment strategy for the fund, the agency shall act in a manner consistent with obligations under the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018. There are also other Acts and provisions that could be elaborated on but these are crucial areas where Ireland has put in place strong legislative measures precluding investment. I want to ensure there is no ambiguity whatsoever in respect of investment in these areas. I will come back to that point in a moment. Unfortunately, we have seen situations where Ireland's investment has had ambiguity in respect of these matters.

Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 16 to require that in developing an investment strategy for the climate and nature fund, the agency would again act in a manner consistent with the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018.

Amendment No. 28 seeks to insert a new section to provide that the Minister would, within 12 months of the Bill passing into legislation, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining how the use of external investment managers for the future Ireland fund, the infrastructure, climate and nature, ICN, fund and any other funds controlled by the agency impacts the State's national divestment obligations under the Acts of 2008 and 2018, and any future divestment policies the State may be mandated to pursue.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to insert a new section to provide that the agency will ensure that the assets of a relevant fund are not directly or indirectly invested in a manner which would contravene Part 4 of the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008.

I am focusing on the area of potential investment in cluster munitions because it is something about which I feel strongly. I was lucky to be present in Croke Park when Ireland negotiated a global ban on cluster bombs and to be a part of the Cluster Munition Coalition at that time. Ireland was able to show leadership partly because it was free from the complications of a national defence industry and military industrial interests. We were a neutral country with a record of disarmament, which began with the historic work Ireland did on the non-proliferation treaty. We were in a unique and strong position because we were not implicated or invested in those kinds of weapons and that gave us credibility when the global ban was negotiated.

We have clear legislation which states there should be no investment of any kind in cluster munitions or in factories or companies that produce cluster munitions. The legislation is explicit and refers to the production of munitions of any kind. The legislation is not limited to cluster munitions but applies to any munitions. We have seen two areas recently where the Irish State has not been clear about how it is following through on oversight of investment. One relates to when we were having our committee oversight of the divestment Bill in respect of the occupied territories. I will come to further discussion of that later. From the officials who spoke, there was talk about the use of external asset managers and external actors, and that they have their packages of things they do and we engage with them and ask them to engage with their other clients. There was a sense of an arm's length to some of the oversight and scrutiny. That is the reason for amendment No. 28. I am concerned, frankly, at the level to which some of the crucial decision-making and the actions in respect of key policy points agreed by all of us in the Oireachtas, and not just belonging to one side of the House, seems to be delegated to external investment managers. There seems to be a sense that there is a bit of deniability or distance there. I will come back to that point again because I want it to be examined further.That is why this is about a report. I am not prohibiting the use of external investment managers. I am saying it is an area that needs more scrutiny. That has certainly come to my attention from the finance committee. I know the Minister of State is interested in attention to detail in how things are done. I believe he should be examining it in more detail. That is why I have suggested in amendment No. 28 that there would be a report that looks at how these external investment managers are reflecting the State's divestment obligations. Certainly, we would not want a situation where there is simply an iterative process. That is what we heard about when we talked about the illegally occupied territories. The external investment manager might engage in a process where he or she might appeal to a company to think about doing things differently. An iterative process would not be adequate to meet our obligations under the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The legislation is strong and clear and should be implemented in a strong and clear way, not in a way that may be iterative, inadequate, at arm's length or without oversight. Then I come to the fact that, sadly, the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 did not seem to have been considered at all with regard to the recent ammunition production Act that went through the European Union. We had a hearing about that at the finance committee. The ammunition production support Act was, in most people's minds, quite extraordinary. It was an Act to direct €500 million from the multi-annual financial framework, which is the general EU budget, directly into supporting ammunition producers as an industry subsidy. It was justified by the European Commission with somewhat ludicrous twists of logic. For example, even though the Treaty on European Union is really clear that in cases where there are defence or military implications, that should not be coming from the general budget and it should require a unanimous vote, the Commission said it has not looked at it with regard to defence and military implications and that it is treating it simply as an industry support measure. Its justification was that it is an industry support measure that it needs to bring in because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the national supplies being depleted.

However, to be clear, this ammunition support Act simply supports these companies. It does not look to the weapons that they are sending to one place or another. They can sell weapons wherever they like. When we asked the Departments of Finance and Defence to speak to us about this, they did not give us any example of how they had considered the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the national implications for Ireland. To be clear, that is €500 million from the EU budget. The estimate that we had from the officials is that it is about €12 million of Irish money that has gone into a fund which goes to manufacturers which are making weapons and munitions, even though we have national legislation that says you cannot invest in any factory that manufactures munitions. It is a direct clash. Some €12 million of our money has been invested and national legislation states that we cannot have our money invested in that way.

This is a real concern. I believe we are inconsistent with our national legislation, leaving aside the separate argument which I know the Minister of State could have at a different time, which I have had with the Commission, where I believe that its interpretation of the Treaty on European Union is wrong and potentially disingenuous. It is a concern on a national level. I asked if the Departments considered it, if it was proved and if it was checked against our national legislation. They did not have any evidence that it was. I am putting this in because I know the Minister of State's reply and notes will say that this is already law and that I do not need to put it in. The point is that it is a law that is not being looked at by people who are making decisions about the Irish public's money.

For further context, the ammunition support fund goes to companies which are manufacturing ammunition and arms. Those arms can end up wherever. I have not even scrutinised the full list but when I began to, one of the companies, which I will not name, is a company that recently exported 10,000 tank shells to Israel. That is a company that is benefiting from this €500 million fund, to which the Irish contribution is €12 million. That is not okay. I do not believe the public would regard it as okay or that the Minister of State would regard it as okay. It is a failure to scrutinise. Of course, under the treaty, Ireland could have opted out under section 31. We could have said we cannot be part of this bit. Whatever the Minister of State's opinion about it overall as a strategy for the European Union, which I am passionate about, I think this is a terrible approach by the European Union in ramping up military production and investing in companies which have had tenfold increases in their sales to Israel. These are not companies struggling with production when the money is there, but the idea that the arms industry needs a boost of public money to keep it going is frankly ludicrous. That is by the by. Our concern here is about how Irish money is invested and spent.

I am sorry that this seems very wide and addresses some other issues, but it is why I have tabled the amendments. The Minister of State does not have to answer on all of these issues. I am not expecting him to, but I am saying we cannot be complacent. I have a recent example of a case where our national legislation on cluster munitions is not being properly scrutinised and thought about when decisions are being made on the allocation of the public's funding. I do not want that to be the case with these funds. It would be really regrettable if that was the case with these funds. It would taint what we are all hoping for from these funds. I sadly cannot be complacent about that fact, which is why I want to have it copper-fastened in the legislation.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his engagement. The point is that it has been under this Government's watch that the failure to apply this legislation properly has happened. This is not something for the EU. The question of the wider policy on the ASAP is an EU question, but the question of Ireland's involvement with, agreement to, participation in and contribution towards this programme is a national one. It is a question for the Government. I am concerned that there is a clear inconsistency between there being an absolutely explicit prohibition on investment of this kind in the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the fact that €12 million of Irish money, effectively, is going to these arms manufacturers. As I said, we know that at least some of these arms manufacturers are currently providing arms in breach of an International Court of Justice ruling that says every state should do what it can to prevent any acts of genocide. They are also going against the call of the UN Human Rights Council for an arms embargo. There is, therefore, a real tension evident here with this policy. That is one aspect. There is then the tension in regard to Ireland's engagement. It comes back to that law. I am not going to press the amendment now but I will come back to this on Report Stage.

I was somewhat shocked at what we heard last week in the finance committee. It was not simply that an attempt was made to explain why this measure was somehow compatible but that there seemed to be no consideration of the cluster munitions legislation. To be explicit, I reiterate that this legislation bans investment in any munitions. We need to take this legislation very seriously, especially when there are calls from the UN for an arms embargo and a requirement from the International Court of Justice that all countries would try to ensure they are in no way implicated in any act that contributes to a genocide.

Regarding external asset managers, with respect, I probably will press this amendment or I might withdraw it and bring forward a new one on this matter because it is a wider issue. Simply saying it is a requirement is fine and I am glad to hear it. I believe, however, that this area needs examination and more scrutiny. It is not simply enough to say that we told them this was the requirement. We must be examining what is actually happening. We must be considering the follow-through in this regard, exploring how these asset managers interpret this requirement and looking to see how it is monitored on our side. It is, therefore, an area that does need more examination.

Whenever we delegate a job to someone else to do on behalf of the Irish people, effectively, there must be very tight monitoring of it. It may be a practice that has not had as tight a level of scrutiny as it should have had in recent years. I am not impinging the reputation of any individual external asset manager. This is an area where more scrutiny is needed, however, and not simply around what the communication outward is but regarding what the effect of the communication is. Can we look to instances where there were failures and these were corrected, for example? Have there been examples of this type of failure happening where the outcome led to a change or shift in the way external asset managers were presenting a package or portfolio of goods? Where the State's requirement in this regard is having an impact is something I would like to look at.

As I said, this is an area where I feel, in the few points where I have encountered it, there was a lack of scrutiny. I am being frank. I am being vague because there has been a lack of scrutiny and that is why I want there to be a report. This is why I want this area to be examined. The Minister of State is in the position to bring about a real examination of how external asset managers are being employed, what the effect has been and how things have panned out. I might not press this amendment, but I would like to hear what the plans are in this regard other than simply sending a strong message at the outset. I refer as well to what the consequences are if there are situations where the requirements are not being met. I will, therefore, withdraw amendment No. 2, which is the first amendment in this grouping and then move to the first of my amendments in the next grouping.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) In developing the investment strategy for the FI Fund, the Agency shall ensure that such a strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories.”.

This amendment seeks to amend section 7 in respect of the investment strategy for the Future Ireland fund by providing that "In developing the investment strategy for the FI Fund, the Agency shall ensure that such a strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories".

Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 16 that would require that "In developing the investment strategy for the ICN Fund, the Agency [would] ensure that [the] strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories."

Amendment No. 32 seeks to insert a new section into the Bill to provide that "The Agency shall ensure that the assets of a relevant Fund are not directly or indirectly invested in an undertaking operating within an occupied territory" and that "Where the Agency becomes aware that an undertaking in which the assets of a relevant Fund are directly or indirectly invested is, or becomes, an undertaking operating in an occupied territory, the Agency shall divest the assets of the relevant Fund from such investment as soon as practicable."All of these amendments relate to the really important issue that our public moneys should not be invested in illegally occupied territories, or in undertakings that are operating in illegally occupied territories. It is a discussion we have had in terms of the divestment legislation which is being considered by the finance committee. It is far better to take the initial steps to avoid the investment in the first place rather than having to look to retrospective divestment after the fact.

The need for legislative guidance on this is very clear. When the NTMA spoke to the finance committee, it was very clear. It applied the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 because it is required to do so by legislation. We know the NTMA and others operate an exclusions list. I may come back with further questions and amendments on Report Stage around what exclusions list may be attached to these funds. In terms of the exclusions list, occupied territories are not on it because they were not required to be on it by legislation. Subsequently, there was the welcome decision by the Minister to seek partial divestment from some of the companies operating in illegally occupied territories.

When we talk about things like the occupied territories Bill, of which I am a co-sponsor, and indeed the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill that is going through the Houses, the focus is on the legality of these new Bills and their proposals. To be clear, there is no legal basis on which we can trade with an illegally occupied territory. It is a not a matter of asking if divesting or ceasing trading is legal. The point is that there is no legal basis for trade with an illegally occupied territory in the first place. When we trade with an illegally occupied territory, we are operating outside the law as a State. There is no legal basis under the EU-Israel association agreement. Of course, there are many occupied territories, including Western Sahara, a place I have a great interest in and there are real concerns about trade in that area too. To focus on the one that is probably most on people's minds, the illegally occupied territories in Palestine, we cannot trade with an illegally occupied territory under any agreement that stands. We cannot do so under the GAT rules or under the WTO rules. None of those rules allows us to trade with an illegally occupied territory whose population cannot give permission for that trade. The EU-Israel association agreement by its very nature is explicitly with Israel and not with territories that it is illegally occupying. It is very clear. Occupied territories cannot be part of a trade agreement. When we trade with illegally occupied territories, we are literally trading with illegality and we are doing so outside of a proper legal basis. Similarly, when we invest in illegally occupied territory there is no legal basis for that. Under what guise are we trading with such a territory? Specifically in this case, the companies that are choosing to operate within illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territory are operating in a way that is outside the law. We have to ask if it is appropriate for us as a State to be investing in companies that conduct some of their practices and operations without a legal basis.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

To be clear, while I do not believe we should have to put these provisions in the law, apparently we actually have to include them to make it explicit. We heard from those who manage the assets of the State in the NTMA and other bodies that they need political or legislative direction in terms of doing the right thing, which they should be doing anyway. It would be incredibly regrettable. It is one thing that we are trying to unpick the poor and wrong investment choices made by the State in the past which have allowed us to be implicated in investing in companies that are operating outside of the proper law. This is serious. They are very big companies. Just because they are very big companies in some cases does not mean they are not breaking the law. It does not mean they are not operating without a legal basis. Some of the places where these companies are operating are disempowered or poor, lack recognition, and are less likely to be able to take action. We know the brave and long battle that Western Sahara has had in trying to take cases against the illegal operation of trade and extraction of resources from its territory, which is illegally occupied and awaiting a referendum. Currently there is no basis for Morocco to be trading in any goods that come from Western Sahara. They have been taking their case painstakingly through the European Court of Justice and so forth. It should not come to territories to do that. We should be doing the right things in the first place.

Now we are here so that we do not have to pass some future Bill in some future Oireachtas where we depressingly are trying to get divestment, asking questions or having statements about investments of the future Ireland fund or the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. I know much of that investment is going to be in Ireland. That is the hope. We hope it is happening nationally to a large extent. The problem is whether it will be with companies and entities that are also operating in occupied territories. It does not have to be a direct investment in whatever is happening, a particular practice in an occupied territory. It is about investment in companies and undertakings that are operating within occupied territories. For me, this is really clear. It is around not making mistakes that were made by the State in the past. Those mistakes are now being slowly unravelled but with a reluctance to face that some of the biggest companies Ireland has invested in are implicated in this way. That is why the divestment that is happening at the moment has been incomplete. This is an opportunity for us to get it right from the start on these funds. What is exciting about these funds is that they really are meant to be directed at the future and at the idea of infrastructure, climate and nature. They are meant to be directed towards things which are in themselves a public good. It would be a pity if that goal and mission were compromised by the kind of inappropriate investments that Ireland has sadly made in the past.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I must have skipped something.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know this is Private Members' legislation and that, by its nature, it is going to be slow. It is quite early in the process, whereas this legislation is moving ahead apace, so it is important we get it right. The idea is that we would wait until after that legislation has been on its full journey before determining whether we want to have measures in terms of divestment. That is Private Members' legislation, which will have its consideration and has its suggested mechanisms, which are different, by the way, from the mechanisms I have suggested here. However, the responsibility sits with the Minister of State and the Government in terms of Government legislation and what mechanism the Government is going to use to assure the Irish public, whose hearts are broken, frankly, looking at some of the actions that are taking place currently in illegally occupied territories, that action will be taken. I should point out, and I believe it is in amendments Nos. 3 and 10, that I do not specify the mechanism. In only one of the amendments we discussed, amendment No. 32, do I discuss or suggest a mechanism, and I thank the Minister of State for the opportunity to dive in a bit more into that, and I will. In amendments Nos. 3 and 10, however, I do not suggest a mechanism and I leave it, in fact, at the discretion of the Government and Minister to design what mechanism they believe is appropriate, so there is no question there of cutting across national or Government powers. There needs to be some mechanism because I think the public wants to know - not to hope or to aspire but to know - that there is no investment in occupied territories. It seems there are the bones of a mechanism - I may not be happy with it and it may not be adequate to my purposes - in what has been applied in respect of investments in, as the Minister of State said, and the removal from certain companies - the figure cited was €9 million but I will not quote back the figures - of substantial millions that were invested in those companies and undertakings operating within illegally occupied territories and which the State has now divested itself of. The Minister of State indicated that were the same characteristics which were identified in respect of those companies to be found in other companies, it would be the intention to divest from them, but that is a policy and a policy can change tomorrow. It sounds to me, though, that if there is a policy and that policy is based on the consideration of certain characteristics, that should become a policy which is captured and reflected in the legislation and which is given as clear guidance, because, to be very clear, clear guidance is needed to those investing on behalf of the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund.

This goes another step further regarding external asset managers. If we do not give them clear guidance rather than simply saying economic and social governance in a loose sense of what that might mean, there are a lot of external asset managers who may choose not to interpret that as having any problem with occupied territories because the practice is many investment firms are investing. There is huge investment that takes place in illegally occupied territories and a significant amount of money flows through these illegally occupied territories and the companies that operate within them. There is the very fact the State had millions in investments from everywhere in the world in companies that operated within these illegally occupied territories, so it has happened and a simple general economic and social governance standards clause has not been sufficient in the past. A new policy has been introduced but it is only a policy of this Minister and Government. It is not copper-fastened by any legislative measures. It is not made clear, and because it is not copper-fastened in the legislation that is setting up these funds, there is absolutely no guarantee it will be applied when these moneys are being invested.It is not something we can be clear on or complacent about.

I genuinely see no obstacle to the Minister of State's support for amendments Nos. 3 and 10. They simply state that the Irish public's money should not be invested in undertakings operating in occupied territories. The Minister of State can provide any definition he wishes of occupied territories, or even provide regulations that identify what the Irish State considers to be an occupied territory. Those regulations could make reference to the various articles of international law that I have mentioned in my definition – that is, if the Minister of State does not want to transcribe the international law directly into the legislation. That does not create any obstacle to amendments Nos. 3 and 10.

Amendment No. 32 provides support for the identification of occupied territories by referring to the relevant international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention. An "occupied territory" is defined as one occupied within the meaning of the convention and which has, according to my amendment, been "confirmed as such in a decision or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice", "confirmed as such in a decision of the International Criminal Court", "confirmed as such in a decision of an international tribunal", or, and this relates to the discretionary power, "designated as such for the purposes of this Act" by a Minister. If the obstacle is that the final decision sits with the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice or an international tribunal, a version of my amendment could certainly be submitted on Report Stage – I will do so – that states the Irish State will set out its own definition of "occupied territories" with reference to the key Acts and legislation. In that way, the powers will remain within the Constitution and in accordance with principles of national sovereignty.

There is another approach that I might take on Report Stage, and that is to say we should not be investing in undertakings that are operating in any territory without a legal basis. Perhaps we spend too long trying to place the burden of proof on those who say a territory is occupied. Let us place the burden of proof on the undertaking by asking it to show us the territory in which it is operating is not occupied, its legal basis for operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank that have been declared illegal under international law, or something indicating whether it believes it is operating within Israel rather than an illegally occupied territory. The undertaking should have to show the basis on which a territory is not regarded as occupied and on which it can stand over its decision. It is a little more onerous to have to proceed in this way and it would probably be simpler to exclude the occupied territories, but if it is too difficult to identify occupied territories, even with really clear reference points such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, we just have to check everything.

It is not acceptable to have any risk at all of our money being part of what creates the wealth and impunity generated by those operating in occupied territories. I am referring to both the Western Sahara and occupied Palestinian territories. Occupation has been very lucrative for many people. The fact is that nobody seems to be calling companies to account where there is money to be made. We must not be complicit in this anymore because all of this contributes to a wider culture of impunity, one in which wealthy companies and wealthier countries can do what they want. It seems small, perhaps, to build a little mechanism into this Bill as it goes through, but it deals with our money. If the Minister of State does not want to accept my mechanism, I would like him to come back with one on Report Stage that shows how some of the public scrutiny criteria being applied at a time of public pressure will be consistently applied to the new funds, that the definitions of economic, social and governance measures will be clear, and what other mechanism we can apply to ensure there is no risk of Irish money being used in the way in question.

I intend to press amendment No. 32 and to propose different approaches on Report Stage. I am doing so in a genuinely constructive way but I am also deadly serious. I am not here simply to posture and relive some old argument; I am here because I do not want to see another euro of our money used in ways that contribute to suffering.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I will continue with my response. I thank the Chair.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to continue.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

With regard to references to our past debates, I am bringing a new urgency. I have been talking about the occupied territories Bill for many years, but right now I believe this is urgent. It is urgent to ensure we do not have the kind of investment in question.

What the Minister of State said raises two further areas of concern. He mentioned that a future Government might have a different strategy. That is why we need to be really clear. It is simply not enough for a current Minister to be considering mechanisms and criteria – I would love to hear more about these and perhaps it would be useful to expand on them on Report Stage – or to be applying criteria on divestment from illegally occupied territories and undertakings operating in illegally occupied territories, because doing so is a matter of policy and a new Minister might have a different policy.When it comes to Ireland's compliance with international law, the spirit of that law, multilateralism and human rights, it should not be at the discretion of a future government as to whether the State is going to invest in illegally occupied territories. That is not a matter which should be at the discretion of a new Government; it is one we should be getting off the table right now at the outset. A future government will make its decisions, but, right now, it is this Oireachtas that will pass the Bill before the House.

As the Minister of State knows well, when a Minister comes before the Houses, he or she is asking for legislation to be passed. It is very reasonable that parliamentarians say that they are open to legislation being passed but that there is an important condition attached. We do not have to throw our hands up and say we will not crowd a future government or leave it to make its own decisions. It is our responsibility to ensure that we give as clear guidance as possible on a manner such as this. I do not accept the idea that we should not be overly specific in setting strategy. It is not a matter of opinion when it comes to international human rights, international law or ensuring that the State is not contributing to the continued making of money from illegally occupied territories. I am quite comfortable with no future government having strategic options in respect of that issue.

In the context of its clear guidance and discretion, as already stated, the NTMA has allowed investment in illegally occupied territories and in companies and undertakings operating in those territories. It has done that under this Government's watch, and it has done it over a number of years. This is quite a different Bill, and the mechanisms involved are also quite different mechanisms. The NTMA was clear that illegally occupied territories are not included in the exclusions relating to its current economic, social or governance measures.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not accept the two arguments relating to future discretion. It is simply not enough to say that the NTMA has offered clear guidance because the decisions made by the NTMA - which it was very comfortable with until it was eventually directed or encouraged otherwise by a Minister - allowed for the State to invest money in illegally occupied territories. We cannot say it will not happen because it has happened. We cannot be sure it will not happen again because we do not have concrete legal mechanisms to stop it happening again. That is what I want, namely a mechanism to ensure that it will not happen again. I am extremely open to a mechanism suggested by the Government. It does not have to be the mechanism we propose in amendment No. 28. I can think of a number of other mechanisms and approaches that could be used. Certainly, some mechanism should be put in place to give assurance to the public before this legislation finishes its journey, I hope, through the House and certainly through the Oireachtas.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw it and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 12, line 30, to delete "commercial" and substitute "financially, socially and environmentally sustainable".

Section 15(1) states:

The Agency shall hold or invest the assets of the ICN Fund on a commercial basis for the benefit of the ICN Fund, so as to seek to secure the optimal total financial return, as to both capital and income.

This amendment would amend the provision by inserting a requirement that the agency shall hold or invest the assets of the ICN fund on a "financially, socially and environmentally sustainable basis" for the benefit of the fund.Placing an onus on the fund to operate "on a commercial basis", with that becoming its pre-eminent and main point of delivery, means that we miss an opportunity to ensure that this fund - as with much of what we talked about in the debate we have just had on housing and everything else - is actually delivering what we want for the State in the widest sense and in the greatest sense of good. We want it to deliver value for money in the sense of the greatest benefit that can be delivered for the State. When we are looking at what the greatest benefit is, we need to look at the financial, social and environmental benefits of investment. When we fail to do that and instead look solely at the commercial returns, we risk having almost a siloed approach whereby the fund may make some money commercially, but may create problems for the State by failing and missing an opportunity to tackle problems which will cost the State far more money in the long run.

An example of a commercial mandate that is almost limiting the activities and the potential of the State to tackle a really significant and expensive problem is the Coillte mandate, which is operating the business of forestry on a commercial basis. The shareholder letter which the State sent to Coillte explicitly talks about it being cash-generative and needing to prioritise cash-generative activities. At the same time, incidentally, Coillte does not make a huge amount of money for the State. In the end, it makes quite a small amount of profit in the sense of what is actually there and available and goes back to the State. It gives reasonably small dividends but its priority has to be cash and short-term, commercial delivery of dividends. On the other side, that is 7% of the land of the State and of our national territory. Ireland is about to be and will be facing huge costs as we fail to meet our climate and environmental targets which could be delivered, socially and environmentally. This is dealt with in legislation I have introduced to try to ensure the mandate of Coillte becomes, again, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable and delivers for the State on those levels. Then we ensure it is not a matter of saying we do not make money but of saying the choices we make about how we make money are ones which will also deliver from an environmental and social perspective. That does not just mean avoiding harm and problems down the line; it also means seizing opportunities and having a joined-up approach rather than each fund or company operating in a silo where it just has to get itself back into the black. Rather than being about showing that it has delivered a dividend of some kind on some commercial basis, it is necessary to say that the value which one can deliver can be far more.

My amendment is not designed to say that I do not care about the financial aspect. I know we will get a note to say we need to make money so that we can pay for things, but here is the thing: I care about that too. You can make money in a way that reduces the cost you will have for things like redressing climate impacts or social inequalities. In such circumstances, you are basically lowering the costs because you are getting added co-benefits from how you are spending your money. There is a simple idea that you can make your money any old way, and then spend it in certain places later on, but we have seen the poor investment choices I have highlighted previously. I refer to choices like the State investing in vulture or investment funds that buy up blocks of housing and drive up the costs for local authorities that also need to get their money from the State. In this example, even if the State can make profits from the investment funds it chooses to invest in - real estate investment trusts, REITs, and all the rest - it ultimately costs us a huge amount of money because the cost of housing has been driven up when local authorities try to compete to access and purchase social housing.

We need a joined-up approach. We do not need a fund which is simply operating on a commercial basis as if it is just a company or a commercial entity because it is not a commercial entity solely. It is a vehicle for the ambition and investment of the State in the infrastructure, the climate and the nature we want for our future generations and, indeed, for those of us around now. If that is what the fund is trying to deliver, we need to ensure the core mandate reflects that. When we talk about infrastructure, climate and nature, the intention and the very naming of the fund is clearly supposed to be about delivering on a social and environmental level as well as a financial level. If we simply put the commercial basis top and centre, anything that operates on a commercial basis is actually and ultimately operating for the maximum profits it can make within its own terms and operations. It hamstrings what we could be hoping for and delivering from this fund. If we get the mandate right, we get far more down the road. That is why I believe we should be looking at a different kind of mandate from the beginning - a more holistic mandate that would lead to an agency that is empowered to make really good and interesting choices. It may be a long-term choice that involves investing in a particular way with a possible return over five, ten or 20 years. Crucially, in the case of the State, a major cost can be avoided by investing now. That is what is going to deliver more for the people, for the public and ultimately for the public purse, rather than asking where the quickest money is or where money can be made which will make us look good on a commercial basis next year.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to amend section 15(3) by removing the provision that the assets of the fund might be held outside of the State, while retaining the permission for them to be invested outside of the State. Again, it is important that our assets and funds be held within the State and that we do not find ourselves compromised by having Irish State money effectively located and grounded in assets located around the world rather than within our State. That does not mean we cannot have investment outside of the State, but if this fund is meant to be about Ireland's infrastructure, climate and nature fund, ultimately the assets of the fund should be held within the State. The issue of where one's assets are held and located is funny and is coming to the fore very much, as the House will be aware, in what is happening in west Africa, when one looks to France and asks the "where is the gold?" question. It matters where things and assets are located. We have seen that with regard to insurance issues internationally. The assets of insurance funds are being held in Europe and then there is a refusal to fully pay out, even to the actual holders of those insurance funds in the case of other countries which have experienced natural disasters, for example. Where assets are located can matter. I hope to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on this. My instinct is that these assets should be held within the State.

I do not fully see how these amendments are grouped but I am happy to accept this arrangement.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My amendment states: “financially, socially and environmentally sustainable”. Perhaps if I had said “financially, environmentally and socially beneficial” or “the maximum financial, social and environmental return”, it may have contacted the sense of expansiveness the Minister of State is hoping for with the fund. I genuinely believe it is poor economics for the State as an actor to constantly look at how we make and spend money as though they are completely separate. We should join up how we think about both of them. I do not think it is responsible or good management of public finances. I have thought this about the area of public procurement for a while. I have highlighted it in respect of the mandates of certain organisations. There is this idea that we will make money in one area, but we will spend it in another area. That shows a lack of joined-up thinking, because we are not a company and we are not solely an investor. We are a State. We have an extraordinary power to be able to look at both sides of the equation, namely, the spending and the joining up, and look at what is the best decision for both of those aspects. We should not necessarily throw it up and then have it land. This is like how certain parts of economics do not stand up. For example, trickle-down economics does not work. That is economics that does not work.

I hope it makes a lot of money. However, it would be better overall if it made the same amount of money while we made choices that were more environmentally or socially sustainable and if those choices were checked against it. It would also be better if it made slightly less money but environmental and social decisions were taken in terms of how the money was spent, because that would create a situation where we as a State would incur less cost. I will press the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 13, line 4, to delete “held or”.

I will withdraw my amendment and reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 13, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(3) In developing the investment strategy for the ICN Fund, the Agency shall act in a manner consistent with obligations under—

(a) the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008, and

(b) the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 13, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(3) In developing the investment strategy for the ICN Fund, the Agency shall ensure that such a strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 13, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(4) The Agency shall, in determining and reviewing the ICN Fund investment strategy, consult with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Taoiseach and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Climate Action.”.

Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 16 to require that the agency shall in determining and reviewing the ICN fund investment strategy consult with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action.

The Minister of State mentioned how different governments may have different visions for the investment strategy. They will not only bring the original determination of it; they may bring in further reviews of the strategy. Similar to the different governments, while the Oireachtas is agreeing to the establishment of these funds, the Oireachtas and our parliamentary committees also have something to contribute to the question of the investment strategy. This is particularly the case if it is intended that this fund is to be one of the main mechanisms through which we are seeking to achieve our climate goals. Again, that has been stated as one of the areas on which we hope the fund will deliver. I believe there is expertise and relevant insight that could be offered by both of those committees.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 15, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the Minister may not make a proposal for the purpose specified in section 14(2)(a) in respect of the ICN Fund where such funds would be utilised to provide financial relief to companies with an annual turnover of over €1 million.”.

The amendment seeks to insert a new subsection into section 19. Section 14(2) provides that the ICN fund can be used where the Minister deems there is a significant economic downturn and the funds are required to address it. This is to ensure that money set aside to address the most significant challenges of our time does not end up being used to provide bailouts to large companies and corporations. It is about ensuring that if there is a downturn, the priority will be to ensure we invest in a way that is most beneficial to the State and that we do not simply look to keep companies afloat with a subsidy. This has to be around infrastructure, nature and climate. I am open to discussion on whether €1 million should be the threshold or whether a larger or smaller threshold is appropriate, and I know there are different views. I have simply picked that figure.

We know there have been situations in the past where appropriate general supports that the State provided to companies during difficult times, such as during Covid and at other times, have been inadequate or have lacked refinement in their targeting, with the result that benefits were accrued by very large companies that were not, in fact, under financial pressure, when we know many smaller businesses really were under pressure and needed such benefits and schemes. It is appropriate to ensure that if there is a time of difficulty, the priority will be our collective public ambition for these funds and not simply the well-being of certain companies.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept there may be difficulties with regard to where the Exchequer may spend it. I indicate my intention to come back with this amendment on Report Stage. There can be criteria around the circumstances under which we allow money to be redirected from these funds and we may look again at those criteria. In the case of a simple deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State, I believe there needs to be some mechanism which allows there to be a judgment call whereby the redirection of these funds should be towards something, or should be done where there is a reasonable expectation that reallocating such funds to the Exchequer will contribute to the kinds of things that are the ultimate goal of the fund in terms of infrastructure, climate and nature.

It may be the case that there is, for example, a national development project that needs further resources. I repeat that having better procurement policies that do not allow for supplementary charges would help to prevent that. It would be best to have quality procurement in the first place because we have seen this issue arise time and again on national development and other projects. Nonetheless, for such a project, it is important that it meets something like a criterion that would ensure it is another way in which we are furthering the national infrastructure.

I will withdraw my amendment. The point is that I do not think the money should be leaving the fund for just anything. If it is going to the Exchequer, it should be because there is a credible expectation or a credible argument put forward that by releasing these funds, we are moving towards one of the ultimate purposes and goals set when the fund was created in the first place.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 15, line 40, after “State” to insert “or internationally”.

I do not believe the amendment is worded correctly and I am not happy with my own wording of it. Effectively, what I wanted to indicate was that the important thing when we think about greenhouse gas emissions is that we think about reducing them internationally and collectively. The greenhouse effect is around the whole planet and carbon emissions are, effectively, a global concern. I wanted to ensure we did not have a situation where we were bound to consider greenhouse gas emissions in terms of the investment in Ireland while not having to consider those factors for any investment from the fund that might take place abroad. This is what I was trying to get at. I do not want to suggest that the fund should be redirected to carbon offsets. That is why I am worried about the wording and that the amendment could be construed in that way with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gases in Ireland or internationally. I signal that I will come back with this amendment. It is important that we think about both reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the State and Ireland's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions overall internationally, which is a slightly different approach. I want to signal that point, although I have to move amendment No. 13 because it is the first amendment in the grouping.

Amendment No. 14 concerns allowing the fund to be used in a way to implement policies which will facilitate a just transition for workers and communities. There is a great opportunity, if we do this right, to not just see new investment but new investment that is done in a way that supports communities and workers around the necessary, urgent and speedy changes that need to be made across so many sectors.I am concerned that simply having a period of commercial focus may sometimes obscure the fact that we are, in some cases, looking to nurture a transition from sectors which are no longer compatible with a livable future, the workers within it and the communities around those industries. Some of that investment may not offer us an immediate, quick or obvious commercial return as the things that are already up and running. Sometimes, when an assets manager looks straight at the investment in the new opportunities and possibilities such as community start-ups or redirects of investment, he or she goes with the known or the established. However, the very nature of one of the goals and policies we have as a State is that just transition. That is why I feel it would be an important indicator to those who are managing these funds to think about just transition when they are making their decisions around the allocation of those funds. That might lead to better outcomes.

I could have, perhaps, worded amendment No. 15 differently. I may do so on Report Stage. I am talking about the principles of climate justice in this and that we are consistent when we are investing. When I think of climate justice, I am actually thinking about - and perhaps I should have worded it in this way - what we have in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, that is, common but differentiated responsibilities and the fact that Ireland, as one of the countries with a greater record of emissions and as one of the wealthier countries, has a greater responsibility to deliver on climate action and to reduce our emissions.

There is another piece to climate justice, namely, the lack of investments we have seen in the climate transition that is needed for those countries adapting to the worst impacts of climate change which have done the least to cause it. It is important we do not end up with investments that, for example, add to the pressure on countries which have suffered the worst impacts of climate change despite having done the least to cause it. We have seen this time and time again whereby investments move problems and poor production to vulnerable countries. The problems are pushed aside and we add to the problems those countries face. That is not something we want to do. Climate justice ensures that we are trying to have a beneficial effect with our investments on climate and in tackling our collective global climate change obligations, which, under the Paris Agreement, are common but differentiated. We carry a slightly heavier responsibility. We must reflect that and ensure our investments are not just beneficial for Ireland but are globally beneficial in tackling climate change and in supporting countries which are seeking to adapt to its impacts. That would be part of the meaning of climate justice when we bring it through. Sadly, we sometimes have the situation whereby countries have nice policies at home but terrible policies in their investments overseas and that is not okay. Ultimately, when it comes to climate change, that is not going to keep our planet at a liveable temperature because it is not effective.

Amendment No. 16 seeks to amend section 21 to include a provision which would allow the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, ICN, to be used for the implementation of policies which aid the implementation and achievement of the United Nations sustainable development goals and its associated targets and indicators.

Amendment No. 17 is an optional definition. While I do not know if a definition is needed, this definition has been in other Government legislation and I thought to include it as an option.

Amendment No. 18 similarly seeks to insert a definition of a just transition. It is a term widely used internationally. A definition may or may not be needed in this regard, but we have presented a definition which has previously been proposed. As for the definition of a just transition which I am proposing here, we can either rely on the common definition of just transition and not include one within the Bill, which was the decision taken for the climate Act, or if we were to insert a definition, I suggest it should specify:

Bringing together workers and their trade unions, communities, employers and public representatives in social dialogue to develop, agree and drive the plans, policies and investments needed for a fast and fair transition to a low carbon economy and includes; the creation of sustainable employment and replacement jobs of equal quality based on the principles of decent work, the establishment of appropriate social supports and training, reskilling and enterprise programmes for workers and communities affected by the transition. The just transition process in Ireland may reflect and draw on the International Labour Organisation Guidelines on Just Transition.

That is a definition but I know it is not going to be accepted. I understand that. For me, it is important to read that definition because anybody who reads it can see that having sensible investments fits into that delivery and that kind of vision for just transition which has been outlined in that international, commonly-used definition.

Amendment No. 19 seeks to insert a definition of climate justice into the Bill and provides that:

Climate justice reflects the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commitments on equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” and requires that the decisions and actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the effects of climate change should— (a) support the people who are most affected by climate change but who have done the least to cause it and are the least equipped to adapt to its effects, and

(b) safeguard the human rights of the most vulnerable persons.”.

Climate is in the title of this fund, as is nature, about which I actually have not spoken enough. I wish to indicate that I may come back to the nature piece, to what we define in nature and to look a bit about where Ireland sits under the biodiversity convention in that regard. When I talk about these definitions of just transition and climate justice, they may seem abstract or lofty, but they are as real as real can be. They are the substance of tackling climate change. They are almost a list of the things we need to think about. Climate change is not simply a maths exercise. Tackling climate change is something that requires deep thought and joined-up thinking. That is why those concepts of just transition and climate justice, whether or not the Minister of State likes the definitions I propose, need to be reflected in any fund that is purporting to be a fund intended to deliver on climate change. They are really important. As I said, Ireland led the negotiation on the sustainable development goals and we need to show a great strengthening of our seriousness in how we reflect and join up those sustainable development goals, which are a blueprint for development. They are not a charitable project on the side. They are about sustainable development. They are meant to be the pathway which we follow to development. Anything like this, which is a fund designed to be a part of the future development of the State, should be passing itself through the prism of the sustainable development goals as that blueprint for development, which Ireland championed at an international level and has signed up to.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. It is great to have a detailed response on the sustainable development goals. We rarely see detailed commentary on the latter. Regarding just transition and climate justice, this is not the only measure but it is probably one of the best-funded measures. In that context, I will press the amendments. That is not to say that all the money needs to be redirected. However, I feel that when money is being directed towards climate purposes, it should be checked against these principles. I will withdraw amendment No. 13 but I will press the other amendments because they are principles rather than causes that could be applied and checked through. I appreciate that the Minister of State has gone to the trouble of detailing those important considerations, particularly as I have not always received such a detailed response. I do not see them as potential causes but as principles that ought to be considered. For example, if two projects are being considered, the fact that one maps onto something like the just transition should give it the edge.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No 14:

In page 16, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“(f) the implementation of policies which will facilitate a just transition for workers and communities,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No 15:

In page 16, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“(f) the implementation of policies which further the principles of climate justice,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No 16:

In page 16, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(g) the implementation and achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and associated targets and indicators,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No 17:

In page 16, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(3) In this section, “United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” means the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 1 to 17 set out in the document entitled “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015” or any document which amends or replaces that document.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No 18:

In page 16, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(3) In this section, “just transition” means bringing together workers and their trade unions, communities, employers and public representatives in social dialogue to develop, agree and drive the plans, policies and investments needed for a fast and fair transition to a low carbon economy and includes; the creation of sustainable employment and replacement jobs of equal quality based on the principles of decent work, the establishment of appropriate social supports and training, reskilling and enterprise programmes for workers and communities affected by the transition. The just transition process in Ireland may reflect and draw on the International Labour Organisation Guidelines on Just Transition.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No 19:

In page 16, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(3) In this section, “climate justice” reflects the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commitments on equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” and requires that the decisions and actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the effects of climate change should—

(a) support the people who are most affected by climate change but who have done the least to cause it and are the least equipped to adapt to its effects, and

(b) safeguard the human rights of the most vulnerable persons.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 21, line 12, before “invest” to insert “directly”.

We do not need to go through this in great detail but these amendments relate to the same core issue, that question of the use of external asset managers. As I said, I am uncomfortable with the State's reliance on the use of such external asset managers. The policy needs analysis and potentially a review. Amendment No. 24 will provide that the agency will have to be directly investing the assets, which is intended to improve accountability and transparency in respect of those investments.

Amendment No. 25, similarly, will remove the provisions in section 28(2)(b) whereby investments may be conducted by external asset managers.

Amendment No. 27 will delete the provision, which I have some concern about it, in section 28(2)(b) that would allow the fund to enter into contracts and commitments of any description. That is a very wide provision, and I am concerned the fund may enter into an investment commitment from which it finds it hard to disentangle itself. If it enters into a commitment with, for example, entities that may choose, after the point of investment, to engage in some of the activities in respect of human rights or environmental damage we have discussed in other parts of the debate, it will make it much harder for the State to remove itself. Moreover, we look to the question where there will be a discussion about reasonable expectations that may have been made if a commitment has been made. As a result, the agency will effectively have a contract or commitment it will have to balance against social or environmental concerns, and I am not confident the social and environmental concerns or governance concerns will take precedence because we will be told there are legal complexities given the agency will have made commitments and signed contracts, with all that comes with that regarding legal expectations and so forth. It is easier when we are investing and we can just stop investing, but when we enter into contracts and commitments, that comes with problems for that core issue, which is essential for me and which I have emphasised throughout the debate, namely, proper oversight and accountability to ensure no Irish public money will be used for harm or in a way that is inappropriate. That is why, in amendment No. 27, I suggest the deletion of that provision. I have left everything else the agency might do in its borrowing, lending and purchasing, but I am seeking to remove it where it applies to contracts or commitments.

In the case of amendment No. 26, I have tried to include some political check and balance for those contracts and commitments in order that we will, at least, have some political accountability for those contracts and commitments that will provide that where the agency has entered into a contract or commitment, it will have to obtain the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, meaning they will have oversight of that decision to enter into a contract or commitment. Again, that means that if things go wrong, there will be a level of political accountability, and it will raise the bar for risk-proofing of any contract or commitment. The point is that a partnership can be risk-proofed, but what those people we have partnered with go on to do after we have signed the contract with them or made the commitment, and the other activities they may choose to engage in, are not something that can necessarily be anticipated at the time. This comes to the wider question of the need to build a divestment, which was one of the areas we discussed earlier. It is better to avoid improper investment in the first instance, but if it does occur, how do we build in an easy mechanism for divestment for the agency?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 21, lines 14 to 16, to delete all words from and including “in” in line 14 down to and including “managers),” in line 16.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 21, line 18, after “description” to insert the following: “following the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 21, to delete lines 21 and 22.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 21, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

“Report on external investment managers

29. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining how the use of external investment managers for the FI Fund, the ICN Fund and any other funds controlled by the Agency impacts on the State’s national divestment obligations under the Act of 2008 and the Act of 2018 and any future divestment policies the State may be mandated to pursue. (2) In this section—

“Act of 2008” means the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008;

“Act of 2018” means the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 22, line 9, to delete “endeavour to”.

Amendment No. 29 seeks to amend section 31(1)(a) relating to the investment of fossil fuels by removing the term "endeavour" and thereby creating a stronger obligation. This relates to the nature fund, a fund that is meant to be for climate, infrastructure and nature. There should be no caveats when it comes to the question of investing in fossil fuels and fossil fuel undertakings.

I do not believe the Bill is adequate. Perhaps it is in line with the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act and so forth, but that is no longer ambitious enough. We see how woefully behind we are in our climate targets in Ireland. More crucially, hundreds have died in mudslides in Papua New Guinea. Fires are raging across parts of the world. We see desertification at an alarming rate. Climate change is looking terrifying in terms of the liveability of huge parts of this world. Separate from identifying opportunities for great new areas of investment or a different, greener and better future, we need to stop doing damage and digging when it comes to fossil fuels. That means we need to stop relying on fuels that are thousands of years in the making and burned to feed an insatiable economic model. We cannot be part of the problem.

We have used up a lot of the space we have. If we think of the global commons as being the space left in terms of emissions that can still be emitted before we reach a situation whereby our planet becomes unliveable, Ireland's share of the remaining available space is very small. It appears that we will exceed that in the next few years alone. We cannot have any loopholes or wishy-washiness around investments in fossil fuels, because investments make money from things that work against our collective survival on the planet.

Fossil fuels may need to be used in developing countries which are desperately trying to make the transition to putting the most basic infrastructure in place so that they have some kind of resilience. Countries like that can make some kind of case as they try to make a transition and build the kind of infrastructure that will allow them to survive and function as a society. Simply saying that we would like to continue investing in fossil fuels a bit, because it makes money for a fund that needs to deliver commercial returns and we will then use some of that money for projects down the line, cannot be justified. There must be no investment in fossil fuels.

It is not enough to say that we will endeavour to ensure that the assets of a fund are not directly invested in fossil fuels. Section 31(2) uses the term "endeavour", which is weak. It states that we shall endeavour to ensure that the assets of a relevant fund are not invested in an indirect investment, unless it is unlikely to have in excess of 15% of its assets invested or a lower percentage if the Minister so chooses. We are saying that we will try not to invest directly.

If we are to be confident in how these moneys are being managed on our behalf, we need to be confident that those who are managing them can do better than endeavouring to ensure something. Rather, they must ensure that our public money is not going directly into fossil fuels. Frankly, the provision suggesting that there can be an indirect investment if the company or undertaking we are investing in only has 15% of its assets invested in fossil fuels is not acceptable - 15% of what? A giant mega corporation may happen to have 15% of its assets in fossil fuels. That is not good enough. In that situation, we will know that we are investing indirectly in fossil fuels. That is not good enough. Can I check the grouping?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are loopholes in this section about getting around having a climate and nature fund that invests in fossil fuels. That is what is happening in this section. The section states that that we should try not to invest indirectly if it is a large part of whatever we are investing in. There is then section 31(3), which states that, notwithstanding sections 1 and 2 where we were going to try not to invest directly or indirectly, we can still invest where the investment is intended to be consistent with the achievement of the climate objective, the State's climate obligations and the policy of the Government as may be communicated. Again, Government policy can state that we are okay with this. Let us be clear. Fossil fuel investment is never consistent with climate change objectives or the policy of the Government. I oppose all of the language in section 31(3).

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are nearly finished. Maybe we can finish the Bill. I am happy to take a shorter response from the Minister of State.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 22, to delete lines 20 to 29.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 22, to delete lines 27 to 29.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 23, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“Investment in companies operating in occupied territories 32. (1) (a) The Agency shall ensure that the assets of a relevant Fund are not directly or indirectly invested in an undertaking operating within an occupied territory.

(b) Where the Agency becomes aware that an undertaking in which the assets of a relevant Fund are directly or indirectly invested is, or becomes, an undertaking operating in an occupied territory, the Agency shall divest the assets of the relevant Fund from such investment as soon as practicable.

(2) In this section—

“occupied territory” means a territory which is occupied within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and which has been—

(a) confirmed as such in a decision or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice,

(b) confirmed as such in a decision of the International Criminal Court,

(c) confirmed as such in a decision of an international tribunal, or

(d) designated as such for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment in a regulation made by the Minister.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 23, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“Obligations under Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008

32. The Agency shall ensure that assets of a relevant fund are not directly or indirectly invested in a manner which would contravene Part 4 of the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008.”.