Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

There is a huge amount to unpack. My questions fall into two areas, namely, where the money is coming from and where the money is going to, staying within our remit as a finance committee and looking at those components. Of the two COMs or proposals, one is about the redirection of previously planned funds and then there is the massive new loan guarantee system. I might go a little bit into where it is coming from and then where it is going to.

It is worth being really clear for the record that one of the key things, certainly in terms of COM 123, is that we are talking about the social cohesion funding. This is not just about whether Ireland wants to spend on arms and all of that. Ireland is a country that understands how you invest in social cohesion. I want to bring Ms Kinney in on this as well. When we talk about the actual threats to security and the work that needs to be done in terms of security, one of the key things is recognising the genuine threat that exists in terms of climate. Another key factor that we in Ireland also know is the need for positive measures on social cohesion. For example, social cohesion funding has been key in helping to secure and maintain peace in the North and ensuring there are constructive and positive measures for communities on the Border, and in terms of dialogue. Given Europe's long and bloody history of internal conflict in the pre-European Union times in terms of colonialism but also the internal fights, one of the great prizes in Europe has been peace. That peace has come not from a heavily armed Europe post the Second World War, but from the European project moving to a point of political dialogue and co-operation between countries, many of which had histories of conflict between them. When we talk about social cohesion, it is important to have that frame. It is one of the great examples of a peace project because of that refocusing. It was even in the initial coal and steel Act. One of the purposes of these economic activities and this redirection was to direct away from the arms industry. It was specifically mentioned in that founding document. which uses language along the lines of "of whom our own people are the greatest victims", to paraphrase.

Social cohesion funding incorporates regional development funding, which is crucial for our regions, the Cohesion Fund, the social fund and the just transition fund. These are the areas that are very good planks for preparing us for the future in terms of looking to a just transition. Ms Kinney might come in on this piece. We are seeing climate events happening already. The necessary actions that are needed to lower our emissions must not be made flashpoints of conflict. Is it not the case that those funds are now being directed under this new measure to defence and strategic technologies? That is a key new area, namely, the defence industry. Will our guests comment, from a safety and security perspective, on what it means to redirect funds from these very good purposes? Leaving aside the question of whether we should spend on arms, what are we taking away from from an environmental and social cohesion perspective? The matter is treated as if we can opt in or do what we want but actually there is a pressure point. Preferential access for cohesion funding is conditional. The eastern European border regions have to move at least 15% of their overall cohesion funding to these newly introduced specific objectives, including defence. In order to get prioritisation within the overall EU cohesion funding, a member state needs to show it has decided to shift funding towards these new priorities. Our guests might comment on the implications of that.

They might also comment on those huge loans that have been guaranteed or underwritten. I was commenting on housing but it would be great to hear Ms Kinney's remarks on climate and the environment. We have not seen the same flexibilities. For example, Germany is effectively suspending fiscal rules for defence spending, something it would not have allowed to happen anywhere else in the past. We have not seen that same kind of emergency response or security response to the climate in terms of ensuring that money is not an object to the activities necessary to deal with what in the case of climate is not a potential crisis but a known and measurable threat. Will our guests comment on that sourcing?

I am sorry, as that was a bit of a long introduction. I will contribute again, when I will revert on the question of where the money is going, but this is about where the money is coming from.