Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

As announced at budget 2024, this Bill will provide the basis for two new funds: the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. It will also provide for the dissolution of the National Reserve Fund. The Government’s approach to developing these two funds is based on the assumption that a large proportion of the increase in corporation tax seen in recent years is potentially windfall in nature, namely not linked to economic activity within the domestic economy. It is important that the State does not build up permanent fiscal obligations on the basis of revenues that could prove transitory. We are also facing structural fiscal challenges in the medium term, posed by the so-called four Ds: demographics, decarbonisation, digitalisation and deglobalisation. The task of dealing with these economic and fiscal challenges has been a focus for me and my Department over the past year.

On budget day, I was pleased to announce that the Government had agreed a structure to: save and invest resources to deal with known and unknown long-term pressures on public expenditure; support countercyclical expenditure and help address specific climate and nature problems; and continue to maintain a stream of investment in the domestic economy though the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. Alongside these changes, the Government recognises the need to maintain capital expenditure on infrastructure across a range of priority areas. This is reflected in the ongoing capital expenditure programmes across Departments.

The Committee on Budgetary Oversight considered the proposal to establish a fund and published a report at the beginning of October 2023. The Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach published its pre-legislative scrutiny report in January 2024. I thank both committees for their contributions to the development of this Bill. I look forward to further engagement with Members as the Bill progresses through the Houses.

The Bill has four main features: one, the establishment of and rules underpinning the future Ireland fund; two, the establishment of and rules underpinning the infrastructure, climate and nature fund; three, an annual economic and fiscal assessment to determine whether it is appropriate to make the full contributions to the funds and the potential accessing of the infrastructure, climate and nature fund; and four, the management of the funds by the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA.

The future Ireland fund’s purpose is to support State expenditure from 2041. Each year from 2024 to 2035 - in other words, the next 12 years - 0.8% of GDP will be paid into the fund from the Exchequer. This year, that amounts to approximately €4.1 billion. A further approximately €4.1 billion will be transferred to the fund from the National Reserve Fund this year before it is dissolved. With the contributions, growth in GDP and return from investments over the long-term horizon, the fund could grow to around €100 billion by 2035. The Bill allows up to 3% of the future Ireland fund to be drawn down each year from 2041, so long as this withdrawal does not impact the value of the fund capital. The intention is to protect the capital of the fund to ensure the benefits can be spread across a number of generations. The Bill also allows that where borrowing costs of the State are higher than the return generated by the fund, the limit can be increased to up to 5% of the fund and can include the fund capital. This increase would be subject to a Dail resolution, providing additional Oireachtas oversight.

These resources will be available to counteract future expenditure pressures faced by the State, such as those relating to an ageing population, climate and digital transition. They are not directed at any specific expenditure as the use of the resources from the fund are a matter for the Government of the day. It would be impractical and imprudent for a government now to determine the priorities of a government in the 2040s and beyond.

The infrastructure climate and nature fund is the second fund proposed under this Bill. The purpose of this fund will be twofold: to provide a fiscal buffer to support State expenditure during a period of significant deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State; and to provide support to projects that directly or indirectly contribute to climate change, nature, water quality and biodiversity objectives. Some €2 billion will be paid into this fund annually from 2024 to 2030. That is a total of €14 billion. The contribution in 2024 will come from the dissolution of the National Reserve Fund. The countercyclical element can cushion the public finances against future economic shocks to help maintain investment in schools, hospitals and homes throughout the business cycle.

Subject to an annual assessment from 2026, up to 25% of the fund can be drawn down in a given year to support State expenditure. It is intended that this will avoid generating backlogs in capital projects due to a lack of spending during economic downturns. Each year from 2026 to 2030, up to 22.5% of the fund can be drawn down to support State expenditure on designated environmental projects, subject to an overall cap of €3.15 billion. The process for allocation of resources to specific projects will be managed by the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform with guidance developed by his Department and as part of the existing budgetary process.

The Bill provides an annual assessment process to vary or pause the payments to each fund and to draw down from the infrastructure, climate and nature fund in a downturn. This process is central to the adaptability of the two funds. Each year, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council will assess the economic or fiscal position of the State, having regard to a number of indicators, including, but not limited to, corporation tax receipts, GDP, employment figures and the general Government balance. The Minister for Finance will produce his or her own assessment and have regard to the report of the fiscal council. Where the Minister for Finance is satisfied that there has been a deterioration, he or she may make a proposal to Dáil Éireann to reduce or pause the contributions to each fund in the following year.

Where there is a deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State, the Minister for Finance, following consultation with the Minister for public expenditure, may propose to Government and then to Dáil Éireann that the contribution to the future Ireland fund be reduced to 0.4% of GDP in the following year. Where the deterioration is of such significance that it is appropriate to take more drastic action, the Minister for Finance may, following consultation with the Minister for public expenditure, propose to Government and then to Dáil Éireann that the contribution to the future Ireland fund in the following year be paused entirely. When such a proposal is made, the Minister for Finance may also propose to pause the contribution to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. The Minister for Finance may, following consultation with the Minister for public expenditure, propose to Government to withdraw up to 25% of that fund to respond to the economic or fiscal situation.

I should be clear that, where the criteria allow for a drawdown of the countercyclical element and there is climate and nature expenditure in a year from 2026 to 2030, up to 47.5% of the assets of the fund can be drawn down in one year.

The structure for each fund aligns with the existing structure for the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. The funds will be vested in the Minister for Finance and managed by the NTMA. Each will have an overarching investment policy and a requirement for the NTMA to develop and publish an investment strategy. The investment strategy will detail how the NTMA will hold and invest the assets of each fund in accordance with the investment policy. It will be prepared by the NTMA with input from the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. The investment strategy for each fund will be provided to the Government for noting and will be published on the NTMA’s website.

Each strategy will embed environmental, social and governance, ESG, matters across the funds. The NTMA will be required to describe: how it takes into account ESG factors in its investment decisions; the types of investment it will not invest in; and how it determines the basis for making such investment decisions. This provides a framework for the NTMA to engage pre and post investment on important topics such as ethical conduct, human rights, labour practices and environmental compliance.

I will now set out the main provisions of the Bill. Part 1 contains standard general provisions: the title, commencement, definitions and expenses. Sections 4, 13, 24 and 27 provide definitions applicable to specific parts. There is some symmetry between Parts 2 and 3, which establish each of the new funds.

Sections 5 and 14 provide for the establishment of each fund respectively. Sections 6 and 15 set out the investment policy for each fund. The assets are to be held on a commercial basis, so as to seek to secure the optimal total financial return, having regard to the level of risk, including ESG risks, and the likely timings of payments from each fund.

Sections 7 and 16 provide that the NTMA shall determine, monitor and keep under review the investment strategy for the assets of each fund, in accordance with the overarching investment policies. Sections 12 and 22, provides for a mechanism to delay the payment from either fund to the Exchequer, where there are potential challenges to liquidating assets of either funds.

In the context of Part 2, section 8 provides for payments to the future Ireland fund. It provides that 0.8% of relevant GDP will be paid to the future Ireland fund from the Exchequer each year between 2024 and 2035. It allows for further payments to be made on the basis of a Dáil resolution. In this context, relevant GDP refers to the level of GDP for two years previous to the transfer year. For example, the contribution in 2026 will be determined in budget 2025 and based on the level of GDP in 2024. Section 9 provides the mechanism to reduce or pause these payments. Section 10 requires the NTMA to report to the Minister for Finance on the amount of the investment return the NTMA believes is appropriate to be drawn down in the next five years. Section 11 provides for withdrawals from the future Ireland fund from 2041.

In the context of Part 3, section 17 provides for payments to the infrastructure climate and nature fund. It requires that €2 billion is paid to this fund from the Exchequer in each year between 2025 and 2030. Section 18 provides the mechanism to pause these payments. Section 19 provides for withdrawals from the infrastructure, climate and nature fund to support State expenditure in a downturn. Section 20 provides for the designation of environmental projects. The process of allocation of resources will be managed by the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Section 21 provides for withdrawals from the infrastructure climate and nature fund to support spending on such projects and section 23 provides for the Minister for Finance to prepare a review on the operation and effectiveness of the fund in 2031.

On Part 4, section 25 requires the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council to assess the economic or fiscal position of the State annually and to make recommendations to the Minister for Finance as to the contribution to the future Ireland fund; the contribution to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund; whether or not to draw down from the infrastructure climate and nature fund in the following year.

Section 26 requires the Minister for Finance to determine each year whether there has been or is likely to be a deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State. He will have regard to the council’s report in his assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to determine the contribution to the future Ireland fund, the contribution to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund and whether to draw down from the infrastructure climate and nature fund in the following year.

Turning to Part 5, section 28 outlines the responsibilities of the NTMA in relation to the funds. Section 29 requires the Minister for Finance to provide the NTMA with notice of payments into either fund. Section 30 provides for the expenses incurred by the NTMA in its functions under this Bill to be paid from each fund. Section 31 obliges the NTMA to endeavour to ensure the assets of either fund are not invested in fossil fuel undertakings. This follows the template of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018. Section 32 provides for material to be included on the funds in the NTMA annual report.

On Part 6, section 33 amends the NTMA Act 1990 to increase the board by two members, and to enable the establishment and dissolution of sub-committees. Section 34 amends the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014 to incorporate a specific requirement for the NTMA to have regard to any risk posed by the ESG matters of relevance to the holding or investment of the assets of the Ireland strategic investment fund, and to provide a revised mechanism for the transfer of assets from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund from 2035 to align with the process of the future Ireland fund, including the reporting of a five-year rolling plan. Section 35 provides for the transfer of €2 billion of the assets of the National Reserve Fund to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund; the transfer of the balance, which is approximately €4.1 billion to the future Ireland fund; and the dissolution of the National Reserve Fund by order. Section 36 repeals the act which provided for the National Reserve Fund. Section 37 provides that the two new funds shall be exempt from domestic taxation, including the relevant amendments to tax law set out in the schedules.

This Bill arises from the need to deal with future fiscal challenges faced by the State. The establishment of the future Ireland fund will help lessen the fiscal burden for future generations. The legislation also recognises the need to deal with present environmental challenges and to help preserve public expenditure throughout the business cycle through the establishment of the infrastructure climate and nature fund. The provisions of the Bill are balanced in a way that seeks to maximise the contribution to both funds yet recognises the need to have mechanisms in place to reduce or pause contributions to help deal with potential economic or fiscal shocks. The Bill extends a requirement to have regard to environmental social and governance issues, not just for the two new funds, but also extending this requirement to the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. The Bill establishes responsibility within the NTMA for the management and operation of these funds.

I put on record my appreciation of the enormous amount of work put in by the officials in my Department, their colleagues in the Department of public expenditure and our colleagues in the NTMA who have already undertaken a great deal of preparatory work in anticipation of the passage of this legislation. A significant amount of work has gone into the drafting of this Bill. I thank the Attorney General and his team for all their work. I have already acknowledged the work of colleagues across both the budgetary oversight committee and the finance committee for their examination of the general scheme of the Bill.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill, as the Minister outlined, provides for the establishment of two funds, namely the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. It is fair to say these funds were first proposed in the context of two trends: future costs likely to incurred by the State and the growth of corporation tax receipts in recent years. The Minister reflected on this fact on budget day making explicit his intention for a portion of windfall tax receipts to be transferred to these funds and we have seen a significant increase in corporation tax revenue in recent years. The exceptional growth in revenue presents risks but it also presents opportunities for us. Corporation tax has overtaken VAT as the second-largest tax head in the State. It is also highly concentrated, as we know, with only ten companies accounting for more than 50% of all corporation tax revenue and we now know foreign multinationals are paying 87% of all corporation tax receipts in 2022. As I said, this poses opportunities but also risks as a result. The use of this revenue must be treated very carefully. It is for this reason that Sinn Féin has made clear for some time that corporation tax revenue, which is volatile and potentially windfall in nature, should not be committed to day-to-day current expenditure. We support the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund. What matters is how that fund is designed.

In a recent research paper, the Parliamentary Budget Office put the growth of corporation tax receipts in context. Among the issues the office considered were the risks to corporation tax as a revenue stream in the coming years. While many of these risks are well known, such as the concentration and volatility, another was what the office referred to as the infrastructural risk involved. It noted that infrastructural capacity is essential for maintaining a stable and attractive environment for business, employment and investment. I could not agree more with that statement. This State is suffering from an infrastructural deficit and house prices that are not only reducing the living standards and harming the life chances of our people, they are also undermining our ability to attract investment, employment and growth. It is this risk which reveals the weakness of this legislation.

The Bill proposes the establishment of what is called the future Ireland fund. The stated intention of this fund is to deal with future expenditure pressures the State will face, including demographic change. Under the legislation, 0.8% of GDP will be invested in the fund from the years 2024 out to 2035, with additional contributions possible by way of Dáil resolution. These are significant sums. For example, it would see €4.6 billion transferred into the fund in 2026 based on the Department's most recent estimate of GDP growth in last year's budget.

To put this in context, in 2019, the year before the pandemic, the Government recorded a surplus of 0.5% of GDP or €1.7 billion. Had this legislation been in place and this fund in operation in that year, the Government would have been obliged to transfer €2.3 billion into the fund, swinging the public finances into deficit and depriving the State of the funding required to invest in critical areas such as housing and hospital capacity. I say this just as an illustration of what could happen in the future under this legislation. As a result of these provisions we could face a situation where the public finances record a surplus, which could be a modest one, while our people continue at the same time to face acute housing need and chronic housing shortage, yet the Government would be obliged by this legislation to transfer billions of euro into this fund without regard to the housing and social needs of our people. That is the fundamental problem with the way this legislation has been designed and drafted. Payments into this fund and the expenditure policy by extension will be tethered to a metric that is universally acknowledged to be an inappropriate measure of the Irish economy, that is, GDP, yet GDP will determine the amount of money, the billions of euro, the Government must transfer into the fund, possibly at the expense of much-needed investment in housing, health and other infrastructure. What was the basis on which GDP was decided as being an appropriate metric for transfers into the fund rather than GNI*, for example, which is the most commonly used metric by Government, which is approximately half what GDP is? Another metric which could have been used would have been the general Government balance.

Under this Government the rate of home ownership is falling. Homelessness is rising and an entire generation is locked out of affordable accommodation. It is common knowledge that this Government's housing targets are far too low and even those abysmally low targets are doomed to fail as we see how the Government has missed its social housing targets for four years in a row. I will give the Government one thing at least in that it is consistent. We know that more than 50,000 homes are required each year just to meet the social need. Significant public investment is needed to increase capacity in our health services and hospitals. Today, as we speak, there are nearly 500 people on hospital trolleys throughout the State. In many of our hospitals there are dozens of people on hospital trolleys. There are more than 30 people languishing on trolleys in my local hospital because we do not have the capacity, wards and wings that are needed on our hospitals. This is capital investment that should have been delivered many years ago. All of this will demand a substantial boost in capital investment in the coming years if we genuinely want to deal with this issue, or maybe it is the Government's intention to not deal with the issue, just as it has not dealt with it for many years.

It is inevitable the economic climate and the position of the public finances will change. Under this legislation, we could face the scenario whereby, despite the need to increase public investment in housing infrastructure and the economy, the Government is required by law to transfer an amount equivalent to the entire Government surplus into this fund. Hamstrung by this legislation and restricted by its rigid requirements, the State would risk underinvestment and a further undermining of our economy and prospects. That is a great flaw inherent in the legislation because it is too rigid. It lacks flexibility and risks unintended consequences for the State's fiscal and economic policy.

In this regard the Minister may draw attention to or reference section 9, which allows the Minister of the day to reduce or pause payments into the fund between 2024 and 2034 where he or she is satisfied, the word that is used in the legislation, that there has been or is likely to be a deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State. Where the Minister forms that view, the payment can either be reduced to 0.4% of GDP or paused altogether. Any such decision would be made after considering the recommendation from the Fiscal Advisory Council, which will consider indicators such as corporation tax receipts, GDP and unemployment levels. This provision is remarkably vague, and that is one of the problems. For example, if the Government was to record a surplus of 0.8% of GDP, would it be considered to be a deterioration or would the Government be required by law to transfer this amount into the fund, blocking the ability of the State to increase much-needed public investment without borrowing or increasing our public debt? Given the crude basis on which payments would be transferred to the fund, it risks greatly inhibiting the ability of the State to address significant and grave challenges facing our economy and society, such as housing, at great economic and social cost. In this regard, the legislation suffers from serious deficiencies, and for these reasons Sinn Féin will not support this Bill.

The Bill also proposes the establishment of what is called the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. The stated purpose of the fund is to make resources available in a future downtown to support expenditure throughout the fiscal cycle. Under the legislation, money in the fund would be released to support countercyclical expenditure where the Minister of the day is satisfied there is or is likely to be a significant deterioration in the fiscal or economic position of the State. Again, like the future Ireland fund, how this will be determined is remarkably vague and lacks sufficient detail. What are the criteria for the release of money from the fund? An additional provision of the legislation under section 21 will allow only for the drawdown of funds not greater than €3.15 billion between the years 2026 and 2030 for designated environmental projects. It is abundantly clear, however, this Government will fail to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. It has failed to date to meet every climate target that matters. That this legislation will only allow €3.15 billion to be withdrawn, which is on average €630 million each year, to invest in environmental projects lacks ambition. What is of grave concern is that this legislation makes no provision for the drawdown of money from this fund for housing projects during this period. I do not know whether the Minister is aware but we are in the middle of a housing crisis. Whether the position of the public finances deteriorates or not, housing need will not be met without sustained and substantial investment in affordable housing. That the Government has not provided for explicit drawdown from this fund for the delivery of social and affordable housing reveals how out of touch it is with the struggles our people are facing.

Sinn Féin recognises the significant growth of corporation tax receipts in recent years and that a substantial portion of these receipts are potentially volatile and windfall in nature. As we have said repeatedly, these tax receipts must be regarded and utilised with caution. We have also made clear that the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund providing funding for future challenges and current crises should make good use of the significant growth of corporation tax receipts in recent times. However, the final design of such a fund is of utmost importance: how it is invested, how it is funded, how it is drawn down and how it is put to use. For these reasons, the flaws in this legislation and the deficiencies in the Bill's provisions I have already referenced, Sinn Féin will not support this legislation. Facing a substantial infrastructure deficit and housing crisis, the funding requirements over the coming years to address both will be significant, yet the ability of the State to adequately respond to both could be made impossible were a Government projected to run a modest budget surplus, while this legislation provides insufficient flexibility and ambition for either fund to be utilised to boost investment in housing or other critical infrastructure this decade. While Sinn Féin is supportive of the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund to protect the public finances and boost the capacity of this State to address challenges now and in the future, this is not the fund. This is not the right design. It is far too rigid.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, particularly with regard to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. Decades of inaction by successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments lies at the heart of the situation we now find ourselves in: a climate laggard with lofty targets dressed up in serious-sounding rhetoric but without the actual policies or programmes to deliver. Instead of making progress, Ireland is going backwards. Today, Ireland is less likely to achieve our 2030 emissions reduction targets than this time last year. The chances of meeting our first carbon budget are all but gone. Decades of inaction by successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments have provided the situation in which, according to the European Commission, if we continue with the Government's plan, which is missing key elements and has few detailed measures, there will be a 31% shortfall at a minimum. Significantly falling short by a third is also a best-case scenario as it assumes we will meet all of our existing targets. However, the general consensus is that, as time passes, this has become an increasingly impossible task.

We need decisive action now that creates a credible pathway to a just transition to net zero and that rapidly delivers much-needed State-led supply side investment rather than the prioritisation of punitive measures that punish ordinary people, pricing them out of schemes and locking them out of the benefits of the transition to net zero. The Government either does not recognise or, worse, does not care just how hard pressed ordinary workers, families, farmers, and small businesses are. Rather than being asked to share a disproportionate share of the burden in the battle to address climate change, they should be actively supported. We need pathways, not cliff edges. That is the Sinn Féin way and we demonstrated in our 2024 alternative budget, outspending the Government by hundreds of millions of euro and delivering just and fair climate action through progressive, inclusive schemes as opposed to the regressive and exclusive schemes the Government proposes and implements.

While Sinn Féin recognises the value of a sovereign wealth fund, given the potential volatility and windfall nature of corporation tax receipts, the reality is we cannot afford to wait until 2026. In the same way that housing or health will not be fixed under this Government’s stewardship, neither will the climate or biodiversity crises. We cannot sit on our hands and watch as the world and Ireland hurtle towards climate catastrophe. Not only do we need action now, it is clear we need decisive change in the direction of travel. Under the stewardship of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, we exhausted almost 50% of the 2021 to 2025 carbon budget in the first two years alone, and a consensus exists that they will blow it all before they leave office. This is a damning indictment of their legacy. Unless change is delivered rapidly, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party have set Ireland on a certain path to climate failure. The eco-austerity, punitive policies the Government peddles only serve to build resistance and fear among ordinary people. This is not the type of approach that will deliver fair or equitable outcomes, never mind successful ones.

There is a better, fairer way. In contrast to the Government, at the heart of Sinn Féin's vision is a just transition. We need pathways, not cliff edges. This can only be delivered through supply side investment now, not in the years ahead. This legislation does not address these issues and we oppose it on that basis.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As was said, Ireland has seen a significant and welcome increase in corporate taxation receipts over recent years and, of course, it is right this House considers the most impactful way in which those receipts can be utilised to the benefit of the people. As Deputy Doherty said, given the potential windfall nature of the income received, we need to be considered and careful as to how it is put to use. Sinn Féin has been very clear that it would be ill-advised to use this for recurring day-to-day expenditure. However, we also recognise that the worsening housing crisis and acute infrastructure deficit are two areas where investment could be prudently made to address real crises in Irish society that would otherwise go unabated and that are worsening under this Government. The establishment of a sovereign wealth fund would make good use of this funding, but rather than marry these two worthy endeavours, the Government has instead chosen to miss the mark by failing to give explicit or sufficient regard to how the investment could positively impact those deficiencies and crises that are here today within the State. It is for this reason that Sinn Féin will not be supporting the Bill.

I want to focus in particular on the environmental, social and governance concerns relating to this Bill. As of this week, the Irish State has invested €4.2 million of taxpayers’ money in companies that derive profit from their activities in the illegal Israeli settlements of Palestine. These are companies that facilitate the Israeli Government’s war machine and activities this House has described as annexation. The Minister will be aware that Sinn Féin Deputy John Brady brought forward very important and simple legislation that would force the Government to act in respect of this disgraceful complicity of companies that are profiting from war crimes. It would force the Government to divest and ensure Irish taxpayers’ money was not being used for those purposes. Of course, unfortunately, the response of the Government to date has been to defer, delay, frustrate and drag its heels in progressing that Bill. There is no meaningful rationale for this. First, the Government had the excuse that the UN database could not be updated but then the UN database was updated. The most illogical argument the Government presented was that it cannot act on the basis of this database because there might be other companies that are in breach of international law. Then, this week alone, we saw that the Government is itself divesting from some companies that are on the database but not others. All of this points to the absolute need for a legislative basis to divest and prohibit future investment in any company that is profiting from the illegal actions of the Israeli state.

In November, I asked the Minister about the Bill and he acknowledged in principle its merits. However, he indicated he was exploring other approaches than Deputy Brady's Bill. Knowing that the Bill that is before us today was coming down the line, I had probably naively expected this would be the opportunity the Government would take to utilise the environmental, social and governance framework of Ireland's investments to ensure we divested. While I welcome the positive pronouncement that we are going to have a partial divestment from the companies - six companies in particular - that profit, it begs the question why it involves some but not all companies that are on the UN database. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain the basis for divesting from some companies and not others. Is it simply that the Government divested from Israeli companies but not international companies that are on the list? Did it relate to the percentage of a company’s activities within the illegal settlements? Is there a barometer that indicates there is a certain level of complicity in regard to breaches and international war crimes that is acceptable so that Irish taxpayers’ money can be invested in this way? I contend there is not.

My appeal to the Minister, in the first instance, is to ensure the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill is allowed to proceed through this House as quickly as possible and put very firmly into law, but also that the Minister would support amendments to the Bill before us today. One of the things we can get right is that we ensure that never again is the Irish taxpayer expected to fund and invest in companies that are complicit in the most heinous of international law breaches.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to speak in support of the establishment and the principle of both the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. It is a principle that we agree with the Government on. The fact we are establishing funds of this nature is something that would have seemed simply beyond us just a few short years ago. Fifteen years ago, the economy of our country was surrendered to the troika. It was a shameful time for this Republic and the scars of that experience still run very deep indeed. As a state, we were reduced, because of the recklessness of some of the Minister, Deputy McGrath's Fianna Fáil predecessors, to going cap in hand to funders of last resort. The wrong-headed neoliberal agenda then in serious vogue across the world sought to punish the Irish State and its citizens for the sins of the small governing class who governed us. The price attached to the bailouts, as we know, was stringent and it came at a societal cost, a cost from which the country has yet to truly recover.

Progressive parties like ours across Europe and the world roundly lost the argument on what should have been done at that time but was not done. The argument was for public investment to counter the fall-off in private investment, a countercyclical approach where money is pumped into economies to support jobs, business, consumption and public services or, in other words, the kind of response that multilateral organisations and governments across the world agreed on in terms of the response to the pandemic.

With the ongoing and precarious windfall corporation tax receipts, it is the responsible thing to create wealth funds and invest in addressing and preparing for the very obvious challenges of the future. The wealth we have generated now simply was not envisaged a few short years ago and, to a degree, a significant amount of it has all the hallmarks of windfall receipts. Those resources must be deployed sensibly, innovatively and in an evidence-based way. Of course, the idea that we secure a fund to ensure we have resources available to input into the economy in a countercyclical fashion is the right thing to do and our recent experience should tell us that.

I first want to speak about the challenges we have as a society and an economy, with a focus on several key transitions and how these transitions are funded and managed. It seems to me the idea that the future Ireland fund cannot be utilised until 2040 is absurd and, to a degree, irresponsible and deeply conservative given the challenges we have at the moment.

The Labour Party is unique among the Opposition parties in that last August we published a policy paper on the establishment of a national wealth fund for Ireland and how that fund could be best put to use to create an Ireland that works for all. We have one chance to get this right, and future generations will not thank us if we lack ambition or give in to short-termism and fail to address the three major transitions facing our population over the coming years. I mentioned three but there are more, and I will reflect on that later on my contribution.

I want to set out a positive argument for a national wealth fund and what it could it be used for, but I am concerned that the Government has, to a degree, framed the fund in a negative and passive way, as nothing but a fearful reaction to the potential drying up of the current boom in corporate and windfall tax receipts. The Labour Party's view is that we need to make a positive case for how a national wealth fund could benefit our people. Its potential to transform our society is boundless. If established and used correctly, a national wealth fund has the potential to seriously address the major transitions of climate change, an ageing population and the implications of these on pensions and healthcare, as well as the onward march of digitalisation that need to be addressed.

We can also use the fund to address regional imbalances in infrastructure and industrial development across the country, and ultimately pave the way to making sustainable progress towards a fairer and more prosperous Ireland. We in the Labour Party take a much longer term view than the Government is taking with this Bill in terms of the return on investment from the fund. The fund should be based on taking at least a medium-term, if not a long-term, view on the return on investment. The fund should at least envisage not only what it might achieve by 2030 but by 2050. These dates coincide with major commitments under Ireland's climate goals but will also see the other major transitions in the digital economy and demographics well advanced. The Labour Party advocates what we describe as a triple bottom-line approach to assessing the investments the fund will make, with each investment judged on its environmental and social impact alongside its financial performance. Seeking to maximise social and environmental outcomes should be a priority of fund investments, not just maximising returns. To a degree, the legislation that has been published address some of the concerns we have.

An immediate concern, which was mentioned earlier on, is Ireland's housing crisis and housing affordability crisis. An obvious use for resources from the fund would be to radically increase the supply of public housing over time. We know that housing is as much an economic challenge now as it is a social imperative. In the context of Ireland's binding obligations to reduce carbon emissions, we know the European Commission will impose annual fines of hundreds of millions of euro if Ireland fails to meet its climate targets. As such, investment in environmental outcomes should take account of these potential fines when it comes to the cost-benefit analysis being done in the Department. The fund management should adhere to high ethical values which should be rigorously enforced. It must not invest in fossil fuels, as the Minister outlined earlier on. It should not invest in the arms industry, in the occupied territories or other unethical activities. The Minister outlined earlier on the ESG principles along which the fund is anticipated to operate.

As climate change is a global issue, increasing investment in emerging countries should be examined as one role for the wealth fund, consistent with Ireland's overseas aid commitments and sustainable development goals. A regional development commission should be established with a clear and time-limited mandate to come up with recommendations for regional development in a sustainable fashion across different local authority areas. In our view, local authorities should be grouped together for the purpose of this exercise, with regional development investment being delivered via one authority in every three or four using the shared services approach. This is the framework within which the vision for this fund should be considered. The recommendations of the commission should include how to develop medium-sized enterprises within the regions as part of a move away from our famed over-reliance and overdependence on foreign direct investment. In that way, there are also potential benefits to the all-island economy.

On energy transition, measures such as upgrading the national grid, developing North-South energy links and building electricity storage facilities should be implemented to allow us to reach our commitment of a net zero energy generation capacity by 2050. The transitional period might require efficient power stations to fill the gap between the closure of the old and the building of the new, but all of this should be clearly timetabled, with an end date as well as a start date for the transitional arrangements. What the transition looks like, what it involves and when it will end is sometimes missing from the Government's narrative. By definition, a transitional arrangement does not last forever. We need to be clear regarding the timetable. There are areas for investment where Ireland can reduce carbon emissions faster, avoid climate fines and improve the quality of life, including solar roll-out, climate change adaptation measures like flood defences, and advanced construction techniques for house building.

Regarding the digital transition, one of the three important transitions we are dealing with, at present, there are 1.3 million adults in Ireland either not using the Internet or doing so with below basic digital skills, including 670,000 people under the age of 60 and 630,000 aged 60 or older. For the next 15 to 20 years, there will be a significant cohort of people not able to safely and confidently transact online with the State. We cannot leave anyone behind. As such, alongside investing to achieve the future plan of 90% of public service transactions to be done online, there is a need to invest in a transition phase where online and off-line transactions, including by phone, post and in person, must co-exist, with everyone able to access goods and services, including public services, on an equitable basis. To date, there is a lot of description of the planned future, but very little realistic depiction of how we get there and how we make that transition in a way that is credible and fair.

Regarding the demographic transition, the Government appears to assume that current costs for the State pension, healthcare and so on will simply be multiplied by a growing number of older persons. It also relies on the outdated and ageist dependency ratios to underpin its analysis, which are neither realistic nor justifiable, in our view. This is a counterproductive way to envisage the future. Instead, the future State must be one where unit costs for the healthcare of older persons are reduced, which is why there should be a detailed model of the transition, informed by the policy of Sláintecare that we all agreed on in this House a number of years ago. For example, during the next 15 to 20 years, we must achieve fully interoperable electronic patient records across the healthcare system, free of charge primary care, a significant reduction in reliance on hospitals for non-life-threatening injuries and ailments, a comprehensive system of home care provision so people can age well in their communities, the building of appropriate retirement village-type housing stock, supported stock within existing communities with older residents, and so on.

Measures to overcome the socioeconomic determinants of poor health and health inequalities must be addressed alongside individual behavioural interventions. For example, the terms of reference of the long-awaited commission on care should include a role for investment and measures to develop the transitional phase towards the future vision of healthy ageing, the option of a longer working life, and more equitable and inclusive longevity.

Based on all I have said, it should be obvious how a national wealth fund could achieve significant social and environmental outcomes, alongside significant financial returns, by investing in the transitions that must be developed and implemented between now and 2050. A national wealth fund can also be used to address market failure, such as in housing, by increasing the level of public housing. The energy transition can only happen if there is sustained investment and subsidy from the State to encourage the development of wind and solar energy and storage and other infrastructure for a low-carbon energy system, alongside structural changes to our transport system, such as investment in railways. This would mean the public and private sectors working together for the same aim. The digital transition will be held back for years or will deepen inequality unless there is investment in the development of digital skills in the population among consumers as well as workers, alongside improvements in access to broadband and the affordability of digital devices. The demographic transition will require the development of new hospitals and other health and care facilities. Even more, it will require a national transformation in health knowledge and healthy behaviours, which can only be achieved if the investment is in place to overcome structural and systemic factors that lead to poor health outcomes.

The national wealth fund is an opportunity to improve the quality of life for everyone. When I talk about everyone, I mean everyone on this island and the quality of life of all citizens on this island. Our aspiration held by most of us in this House is towards a united polity on this island, informed by the principles of John Hume. Last month, the Labour Party published a policy position on that very subject.

6 o’clock

We made the point that we need to make the appropriate preparations towards that goal. That is the responsible thing to do. There has been much debate in recent days about the cost of uniting this polity into one jurisdiction. In the policy document we published last month we set out very clearly how we would seed fund, if I can use that description, the reunification project in a responsible and prudent way, but also in a way that works, using and deploying our new-found wealth to do so.

When the outline proposal for a €3.15 billion climate component of the Government's proposed €14 billion infrastructure, climate and nature fund was published, I said that it needs to be markedly increased. There needs to be a renewed vision if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate targets. I stand over that and nothing in this Bill or the narrative around it tells me otherwise. Thankfully we have had significant emissions reductions in recent years but in truth, we have a very long way to go to get to net zero by 2050. We know from the Climate Change Advisory Council that so many ambitions simply have not been met by actual actions. As it stands, we have pretty much already reached 50% of our emissions ceiling out to 2030. The climate crisis is the existential threat of our time and the time for modest steps and incrementalism has long passed. In the Labour Party's policy document on a national wealth fund published last summer, to which I alluded earlier, we set out how our wealth should be used to fund the transition phase and how that phase should be time-limited. We outline how this form of State investment, allied with upgrading the national grid, the potential for direct State investment in solar and offshore wind, and a continued focus on advanced construction methods and climate change adaptation measures, should form the cornerstone of any Government initiative on how we deploy our windfall corporation tax gains. That would be transformational.

There are real questions for the Government to answer on the design of this fund. The legislation has been published, but I still have those very same questions around design and implementation. Why, for example, has the Minister set a maximum drawdown of €3.15 billion for climate and nature up to 2030 from a total fund of at least €14 billion? A sum of €14 billion was the original vision for the fund but that has now changed. There is now no limit in relation to the overall cumulative value of the fund. Where is the evidence to back up the decision on the €3.15 billion? Why was this figure decided before we knew what the review of the outdated 2018 adaptation plan, which is what it is based on, has to say? Why has the Government decided that the fund cannot be tapped until 2026 when the urgent demand for additional investment in mitigation measures is now? Ireland and the world simply cannot wait until 2026. The maximum of €3.15 billion set aside does not come close to meeting the extra expenditure of between €1.6 billion and €3 billion per year that the Fiscal Advisory Council, in a separate report last year, said is needed to assist farmers with the transition as well as for retrofitting and other critical supports. One thing that really troubles me is that it is still unclear that the fund, from a climate point of view, should only be used for additional climate and mitigation spending. The funding in general terms, on the current and capital side, should always be, first and foremost, organised in the normal way in terms of the fiscal and budget planning process, investment in climate and so on. The €3.15 billion on climate, ring-fenced in the context of the climate infrastructure fund, should very clearly be about additionality, not day-to-day spending. It should not be the case that it is being dipped into to make up for shortfalls in day-to-day spending and annual budget commitments.

The Labour Party has consistently argued that the focus for spending our excess corporation tax revenue should prioritise the transition steps we need to complete to get to our legally binding targets and a carbon-free Ireland. We were never under any illusion that this would not demand unprecedented levels of State investment, given the challenge that we face. We set that principle out in the document we published last year when we outlined our priorities as to how we would deploy additional windfall business tax resources. While it is welcome that this principle has, up to a point, been conceded by the very idea that this fund will be established, the relatively small amount of money made available to climate compared to the overall scale of the infrastructure fund and the future Ireland fund exposes a worrying misunderstanding of the scale of the action needed from the State.

Regarding section 14 of the Bill, we need to be careful about how we define "designated environmental project". This cannot be done at the behest or whim of the Minister of the day and the thresholds that are set down need to be very clear. Decisions need to be made in relation to the deployment of this fund and what "designated environmental project" actually means. It needs to be based on the very best scientific and environmental evidence. We cannot have Ministers in the future greenwashing pet projects with public money. The legislation is replete with provisions on the requirement for Dáil resolutions to draw money down from both funds or, indeed, to pause payments into the funds. There needs be proper parliamentary oversight of this, given the importance of these funds for our future. We need to avoid the funds being used as playthings of future governments of whatever composition. While it may be constitutionally difficult, does the Minister believe, given the significance of this and the amount of money involved, that a case could be made for a double-lock arrangement whereby decisions on the funds, in terms of Dáil resolutions, could only be approved by a supermajority of members, by 60% or 66%, for example? I appreciate that may be constitutionally difficult but it is worth exploring to ensure we do not undermine the fund or compromise it politically in any way. I am also hoping that the functions of the Fiscal Advisory Council, as laid out in Part 4 of the Bill, will be taken seriously when it comes to the obligation to be placed on future governments to seek the advice of the council on the extent to which fiscal deterioration informs decisions around reduced contributions to the funds.

We welcome the political decision that was taken to establish these funds. We understand the importance of them and support the principles underpinning them. The Labour Party looks forward to bringing forward amendments on Committee Stage to enhance the robustness of this legislation.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this fund and the legislation being introduced in the House today that will underpin it. When it was announced in the budget in October, it was widely acclaimed in Ireland and internationally. When this Government's term is complete there will be a few things that we will see, in time, as the great legacies of this Government. One of them, in my very subjective but sincere view, is the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act. That is going to change, and is changing, the direction this country is taking for the better. We will be in a better place in a few decades because of that legislation, which was supported by almost everybody in this House. I take particular pride in having chaired the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Climate Action that shepherded it through. Another strong legacy of this Government will be this fund that is being established. I commend those who have conceived it and those who are developing the legislation. I also commend the Minister who is here today to present it to us. It will stand the test of time.

It is internationally significant that Ireland is planning for the long term and looking beyond the five-year political cycle. We are saying that we want to protect our environment and to have a counter-cyclical fund so that when the economic times are not as healthy as they are now, there will be finance available to fund critical infrastructural projects. I commend the Minister, the Cabinet and the leaders on prioritising this legislation and on putting aside substantial resources, long into the future, that will see us out of a lot of difficulty in times to come.

Others here will make the case, and have made it already, for changing the scale of the fund, the timeline over which it might be drawn down and other details. The only point I want to make today is that we need to think differently about infrastructure in this country. We need to stop thinking about infrastructure as a solution to the problems we see on a day-to-day basis and start thinking about it in a more strategic way. One of the weaknesses of our country is that we have always decided to build infrastructure because we might see a busy road or an airport that is at capacity.

There are many examples of making infrastructural and spending decisions on that basis. Of course, that doubles down on the direction that the country has been taking up to that point. It makes it harder to change direction.

We need to think, as other countries do, in a more strategic way when we spend money and plan infrastructure. There is an opportunity with this legislation in that it provides for spending on infrastructure in a more balanced, long-term and sensible way. What I mean by that is to build the infrastructure not where the demand is but where we want it to be. If we want to live in the best possible country in 20, 30 or 40 years, we need to be thinking about spending on infrastructure on that basis. I make this case perhaps very parochially. I am a representative of Limerick city and the mid-west and I strongly believe that this country needs a counterweight to the dominance of Dublin and the east coast. I acknowledge I am saying this to a senior Minister from Cork. I genuinely think that we need a counterbalance and the mid-west, including Limerick, Clare and Tipperary, can be the counterweight. We need to be investing in infrastructure accordingly. It is very much about where the demand is not. I would also argue that Cork, Galway and Waterford are cities and regions that should get disproportionate investment in infrastructure. The building up of the regions will create a better Ireland. There should be provision in this Bill to discriminate in favour of the regions.

We have a national planning framework; unfortunately, it is failing and we have to address that. We are way off track. The growth of the capital is accelerating. The intention of the national planning framework is to close the gap between the regions and the capital. We can do that through wise and prudent spending on infrastructure. As Kevin Costner said in the famous film, "If you build it, they will come." That is true. It is a phenomenon known as induced demand. If we build our district heating networks, housing, grid infrastructure, rail infrastructure, roads, hospitals and schools where we want the people to be in 20, 30 or 40 years, we will achieve a much better, more prosperous and more thriving country than if we simply double down on the path we are currently on. We have an opportunity with this fund. It is a very significant fund, running to the tune of €100 billion in the decades ahead, potentially, if I picked that up correctly from the digest. That is such a significant amount of money. We can use it to decide what kind of country we want. It is very much in the capital's interests that the regional cities are built up as well. We have an opportunity to do it. I strongly urge the Minister to make provision for investment in balanced regional development in infrastructure, and to discriminate in favour of the regions in this legislation and in the spending of this fund.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution this afternoon. Sinn Féin has consistently called for corporation tax receipts to be used with caution, having a mind to their potential volatility. For this reason we have said that such tax receipts should not be committed to recurring, day-to-day expenditure. Additionally, we have advocated for the need to grow our indigenous and exporting sector in order to diversify our economy and limit the exposure to dilute the State's economic concentration and reduce associated risks. The establishment of the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund has been proposed as a means of siphoning off a percentage of these receipts which are potentially volatile and windfall in nature. The general idea behind such a measure is welcome. The aim of these funds is to help to deal with future infrastructure challenges such as an ageing population, climate action, digitalisation and other fiscal and economic issues. Nevertheless, the reality of the situation is that these funds are being pursued at a time when the State is struggling from an infrastructure deficit. This deficit is particularly acute, as we all know, in housing. There is also an infrastructure crisis in terms of energy and water. The scale of this crisis is damaging our international competitiveness and threatening our ability to attract FDI. As a result, it beggars belief that capital projects for water and electricity infrastructure are not being prioritised by the Government.

In the face of the loss of our corporation tax advantage, Ireland's ability to compete in a changing world economy has been hindered by a failure to deliver the right set of enabling conditions. Government failure to address issues such as energy costs, sustainable energy supply, renewable energy provision, housing infrastructure, water and other utilities is damaging our capacity in the race for the next generation of FDI. Compounding these failures is the threat posed by more active industrial policies from some competitor states. Additionally, the Government is failing in terms of investment in research, development and innovation, RDI, where we are drifting in the wrong direction on all the main international scorecards. There is a necessity to invest in capital projects which support RDI so we can assure the FDI of the future. While we remain supportive of the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund to protect the public finances and to boost the capacity of the State to address challenges in the future, there are also significant challenges in the here and now, especially infrastructure challenges which threaten our economy. Today I had a large number of meetings, as I am sure the Minister did. I met with two groups in particular, representatives from the trade union movement and representatives from a global multinational corporation. Each of them, for different reasons but basically with the same motivation, raised the issue of housing. This global multinational corporation has a substantial footprint in Ireland and it raised the issue of housing. There is an infrastructure crisis now that requires investment and a change of direction from this Government.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on the proposed future Ireland fund. I will be sharing my time with Deputy Whitmore, who will focus on the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. In principle, the Social Democrats support the creation of a fund to address the future costs associated with an ageing population. However, I think we would have to question the wisdom of setting aside such a significant amount of public funds for the future without adequately addressing the country's current service and infrastructure deficits. Surely this should be considered on an equal basis with future needs; after all, failing to address these issues now will have major implications for future costs. There is no doubt that a sustainable funding stream is needed for future pension costs, but so, too, are increased homeownership rates, yet this Government is found wanting in that regard. Both of these things - pension income and housing status - are connected. Research conducted by the ESRI found that only 65% of those currently aged 35 to 44 are likely to be homeowners by retirement, compared to 90% of those currently aged 65 and over. This presents a major problem for future retirees as well as for the State. According to the ESRI, reductions in homeownership of this magnitude could increase the proportion of older people living in income poverty on an after-housing-cost basis from 14% at present to as high as 31% in the future, meaning almost a third of pensioners living in poverty. Inevitably, this would create the need for greater income and rental supports, placing a huge burden on the Exchequer. That is why a radically different approach to housing is needed now. By continuing with failed housing policies, this Government is just storing up problems for the future.

The affordability issue relates to the current disproportionately high cost of buying a home and also, of course, the lack of affordable rental homes with security of tenure. For every home bought by investment funds, another household is denied the security of homeownership. Considering the lack of security of tenure for those renting, that will all result in a higher dependency levels on the State.

I am equally concerned about the commodification and financialisation of health and social care. Increasingly, we are seeing wealth extraction being facilitated, and even encouraged, by the State in the provision of health and social care services. International investment funds own large swathes not only of our housing stock but also, increasingly, our health infrastructure. This is a very dangerous position to place the State in now and into the future. Ultimately, this outsourcing to private providers weakens the public sector and puts a squeeze on the quality and quantity of services. This is particularly evident in regard to social care services which will face huge increases in demand as our population ages. At a time when we should accelerate Sláintecare reforms, the Government is instead knowingly underfunding the health service. This has seen the return of the HSE recruitment embargo, which will pave the way for further outsourcing. That is inevitable. Even the State's fiscal watchdog, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, said that this year's health budget was not sufficient to adequately meet entirely predictable demographic and inflationary pressures. Outsourcing, of course, leads to lower incomes for employees as it depresses wages, job security and, clearly, pension entitlements. When decisions are being taken about outsourcing so many of our public services, there is a short-term benefit in terms of cost but, inevitably, there are significant long-term costs as there is more dependence on the State.

In terms of fiscal policy, the continued erosion of our tax base is deeply concerning. Given the volatile and uncertain nature of corporation tax receipts, Ireland simply cannot continue to narrow the tax base, not least if we are to meet the demands of an ageing population in the future. The Ireland future fund, while welcome, is no substitute for a sustainable and progressive tax base. Of course, the Minister knows this. In 2022, the Commission on Taxation and Welfare's key message was that Ireland faces major fiscal sustainability challenges and the overall level of taxation as a share of national income will have to increase. When will this reality be faced up to by the Government? It will certainly have to be faced up to by the next government.

I would like to turn to pensions, an issue which is central to this debate. While the proposed fund seeks to assist in funding future pensions, we should not overlook the impact of planned pension reforms which are already in the pipeline. In particular, there are concerns about the proposed phasing out of the yearly average approach to calculating pension entitlements, a system which has existed alongside the total contributions approach since 2019. While the current approach is not perfect, the likely repercussions of solely using the total contributions approach are very concerning. Currently, those falling short of 48 weeks of contributions get a lower pension, but the reduction is not proportional to how short they fall in terms of contributions. This more generous tiering reflects the understanding that a heavy penalty for falling short of PRSI contributions could have severe repercussions for workers, especially those who are entirely dependent on the State pension. An approach based solely on total contributions results in reduced pension levels because it is strictly pro rata. This can only lead to increased levels of pensioner poverty in the future. The Social Democrats call on the Government to amend the planned reforms by adjusting the total contributions approach. In my view, 40 years is simply not achievable for a huge cohort of workers, even with the prospect of credited contributions. We know that the State pension is the single greatest reliever of old age poverty in Irish society and that should be the primary consideration in this debate. We need to bear in mind that in 2019 the CSO estimated that 85% of people aged 65 and older would be living below the poverty line if it were not for the social welfare system.

I want to speak briefly about the kinds of investments which will be made from these enormous funds. It is important to state that it is not sufficient to merely have a framework for the kinds of investments which the NTMA will be allowed to make. I urge the Minister to set down in the Bill the kinds of investments which would not be acceptable from a public point of view. I refer to those in unethical industries, including those which threaten human rights, damage the environment and are injurious to public health. Given the huge pressure from commercial interests, it is important that those precluded areas for investment are set down in the Bill.

Before I conclude, I reiterate the call from the Social Democrats for increased investment in what are undoubtedly inadequate public services. Without this, the State will not be fully prepared to meet the funding pressures linked to demographic changes now and in the years up to 2040. We need a twin-track approach which deals with the shortcomings in services now and puts aside those elements of corporation tax which can be classified as windfall for the future. Those approaches are desperately needed for the future.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I will focus primarily on the climate and nature fund component of the Bill. It is getting more and more difficult to read news reports on our climate crisis and keep an eye on what is happening in the media. It is getting progressively hellish when it comes to what we see globally and across this country. The state of the climate report from the World Meteorological Organization confirmed that 2023 is the hottest year on record by a clear margin. We have seen records broken for ocean heat, sea-level rises, Antarctic sea ice loss and glacial retreat.

We are approaching a lot of tipping points globally. Those tipping points are a point of no return. They are ecological changes that will occur as a result of climate change and have their own catastrophic domino effects globally. Unfortunately, we are reaching those, such as the collapse of the big ice sheets in Greenland and the west Antarctic, the widespread thawing of permafrost, the death of coral reefs in warm waters and the collapse of an oceanic current in the north Atlantic.

These are incredibly worrying things and we are on a worrying trajectory and path. It demonstrates the urgency and speed with which we need to deal with the climate crisis. When Greta Thunberg gave a speech at Davos in 2019 she said, "Our house is on fire". I agree with that sentiment.

I cannot understand why, when we are in such a catastrophic situation where the climate crisis is accelerating to the point where we may not be able to address it, the Minister is introducing a climate and nature fund that will start in 2026. It just does not make sense. If your house is on fire, you throw everything at it. You do not sit down and say you are going to stick some money in the bank and that in a few years' time, you will use it to deal with the fire. That this fund is being set up from 2026 illustrates that the Government just does not get the seriousness of the crisis we face.

I have spoken only in respect of the climate aspects of the fund but it is also a nature fund. Sometimes, as a Government and as a State, we tend to forgot the nature aspects of the work we do and it is very much a poor cousin, so I welcome the fact nature is being incorporated into this fund. The impact on our biodiversity are as catastrophic as those on the climate. The one difference, however, between climate action and biodiversity action is that in many instances climate action is a global responsibility. In the case of the biodiversity crisis, we can deal with it here ourselves. It is a national issue primarily and any effort put in by the State will accrue benefits and the restoration of nature, so it is absolutely within our remit to deal with this and do something about it. Again, I really question why that money is not being made available now, even for the most basic needs such as our national parks. National parks, which people would imagine to be areas that are of national importance where nature is allowed to thrive, are dying on foot of the impact of invasive species, a lack of management and a lack of prioritisation of nature in the parks. We are not getting right even those most basic things. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and to make sure that fund will be made available on a more urgent basis.

When I was doing some research for this contribution, I saw that the Minister had been asked a parliamentary question about the finances available to deal with climate and nature, and when he spoke about the climate and nature fund, he spoke about it only in the context of emissions. He did not mention nature restoration or anything in that vein. I ask him to be cognisant of that. There is a fear that that sort of lack of attention and forgetfulness regarding nature will flow through this process. While we need to deal with this urgently and to see the fund brought in such that the money will be made available immediately, we also need to ring-fence some of that money for nature. There is a real risk that money will be directed towards corporate emissions, such as those from engineering projects, and nature will again be forgotten, as it tends to be in these debates.

An awful lot of hay was made about this fund being developed, particularly by the Green Party, in advance of the most recent budget. Any time anyone spoke about their commitment to biodiversity, they spoke about this €3.15 billion fund. Within the Bill, however, that is the maximum that will be set aside. It will be no more than €3.15 billion but it does not say what the minimum will be. Theoretically, under the Bill, no money could be spent. No minimum is specified within it and that is a big flaw. I hope the Minister will take that on board and ensure a minimum will be incorporated in it and, as I said, that a certain figure will be ring-fenced to deal with biodiversity and nature. Particularly given what is happening in Europe with the apparent collapse of the nature restoration programme, it is important that Ireland take up that mantle and that we do absolutely everything necessary to deal with it. To that end, we will need our own source of funding.

Turning to the overall operation of the investment vehicles and the funds themselves, Deputy Pringle recently tabled a motion before the Dáil in regard to the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. When that legislation was enacted a number of years ago, there was great fanfare about it globally because it was very important. It has been in operation for a number of years, however, and there have been clear gaps and failures and issues have arisen, which Deputy Pringle tried to address or raise before Christmas. One of the major issues relates to where the money can be spent. It can be spent indirectly on businesses whose primary objective is fossil fuel undertakings if it is done through hedge funding or other such financial tools, and that needs to be taken out of any proposal in the case of this fund. It is really important that the money the State spends, whether it comes through the infrastructure, climate and nature fund or the future Ireland fund in general, will not be used for any fossil fuel undertaking, directly or indirectly.

In respect of the direct spending aspect, it appears from the Bill that it will be possible to invest moneys in the programmes or projects of corporations that have a primary fossil fuel objective as long as our national emissions targets and policies are not impacted. From my reading of that, we could theoretically invest in a coalmine in China under this fund because that would not impact on our national emissions. Again, that is not something we should countenance, and I ask the Minister to look at that and make sure any possibility of that will be excluded from the Bill. Whether we spend this money in Ireland or overseas, we should not undermine global or national climate or biodiversity actions, and it is important that be taken into account.

In any event, we will have greater opportunities to debate the Bill over the course of the process.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being here to hear his debate. Some of his colleagues do not always stay to listen to debates, so it is refreshing he is here. When I was appointed Minister for enterprise in 2011, a total of 1.8 million people were at work. Today, the figure stands at 2.7 million. We have a 50% larger economy in terms of the number of people in employment. That is an extraordinary change in our economy and society, and we are planning now for a much larger economy with much greater infrastructural needs. I was taken by the comment made by Deputy Varadkar yesterday when he was stepping down as Taoiseach yesterday. He stated that if he had any regret, it was that he had not been bolder in making some decisions or acting when more cautious advice was being tendered to him. The penny has not fully dropped with all of us that our economy is now so dramatically bigger. We are catering to a much larger population with a much larger set of economic and social demands than we have been planning for. I recall the Minister's Department predicting in 2011 that 50,000 was the level of jobs growth we would experience over a five-year period. We now have nearly 1 million additional people at work after a 12-year period. That conceptual change is something we need to get to grips with.

Equally, while I very much welcome this future fund, the backdrop to ageing that we increasingly hear debated does not recognise that the fact we are living 20 years longer is a fantastic achievement and a fantastic opportunity. It is bringing unheard-of potential benefits that we can exploit, not just for people of a certain age who are experiencing that today but for society as a whole.

We should not be talking about this as a burden and a time bomb. This is an opportunity, and we can build social capital from a growing population that is living longer, living healthily and able to do remarkable things. However, we have not adequately structured our thinking or the institutional framework such that we think of it in those terms and set about delivering the potential that exists.

I cited a few examples to the Minister on Question Time, including the fact that we do not have suitable accommodation for people who are older. Most of us are living in accommodation far beyond our needs, but we do not have the chance or the incentives to right size. Some 50% of us would like to work beyond retirement age, but we do not get the option to do it. Worrying about the dependency ratio when we trap many people who want to work longer in options that close that off to them is counterproductive. I am sorry that the name of the commission coming up is not a commission on positive ageing but, rather, a commission on care for older people. That is a part of the reality, but only a small part. We need to think differently. We are working in an economy that is at full capacity, and that is a real constraint. Our constraints at the moment are not primarily financial; they are real constraints in the context of the capacity to build this infrastructure. We do not have the staff.

The Minister needs to turn his attention to how we are going to build that capacity to build critical infrastructure. We need to think outside the box. How are we going to get those building lots of offices to switch to building other things we need, such as housing and so on. Are we going to take a different view to FDI? We have a good base with IDA Ireland for getting foreign direct investment, but we need FDI to create capacity to build critical infrastructures. We need to upskill those in the construction sector, which is predominantly too small in scale and not building to the standards required. We need to streamline planning, and we are doing that. We need the State to be willing to de-risk some of the investments that need to be made. What would be wrong with the State saying it will underwrite by buying 50% of the homes in a particular development. It can provide certainty. There are 70,000 applications in respect of which planning permission has been given, but work on the relevant projects has not commenced. We need to think about how we shift that.

We are also planning against a dangerous time in geopolitics and at a time of transformative change, as Deputy Whitmore stated. We need to accelerate climate action and climate adaptation. This is a really welcome journey. The State is adopting a plan-led approach and investing in the infrastructure for the fantastic offshore energy resource we have. We will need those resources the Minister is setting aside, and we need an effective plan to bring what is being planned to fruition.

I appeal to the Minister to think about carbon farming. It is good to see the Minister for agriculture seated beside him. Without leadership in the design and funding of carbon farming we will find it difficult for farmers to successfully undertake the transformation they need to take. They do not have the confidence at the moment, and you hear that on a daily basis. We need to invest in design, in potential funding and in leadership.

We need sectoral, circular economies. In the context of the Minster's planning, green procurement is not delivering the level of shift needed in the context of the way we do things. We do not, for example, have timber being used more in public projects. I recently had the good fortune to be in Paris to hear how they are planning for the Olympic Games. The French authorities are taking a radical approach. There will be no plastic inside the Olympic stadium. People will bring their own containers and there will be fountains at which they can refill them. Every element of that construction will be moved on, and they already have the plan for where the different elements of construction will be redeployed after the Olympic Games. That is real green procurement. We do not see a shadow of it here as yet.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin is supportive of establishing of a sovereign wealth fund. With the significant growth in corporation tax receipts in recent years, it is important that the moneys collected in this regard are treated in a manner that protects them in order that they can be used to combat future challenges and crises as they may arise. The design of such a fund must take various factors into account, including how moneys are accrued and invested and the circumstances in which they can be drawn down and the purposes for which they can be used.

I will focus first on the matter of investing the assets of both funds. The legislation references how the assets of both funds may be held or invested inside or outside the State. However, there appears to be a shortcoming in the context of identifying the investments that could be made within the State that would assist the State while benefiting the fund.

Specific reference is made to the provision of the drawdown of funds between 2026 and 2030 for designated environmental projects in recognition of the climate crisis. Let me be clear that I have no issue with this. However, I take issue with omission of specific reference to other crises that are very real, such as that relating to housing. The Government's current targets in this area are deficient, as we are all aware. This has been intimated by the new Taoiseach, among others. I am concerned therefore that this legislation does not provide the flexibility to address the demands in the housing sector, or of other infrastructural demands.

When establishing funds of this nature we must also be clear on what constitutes a reason for pausing or restricting payments in or out of the fund. Take the future Ireland fund and the vague definition of the deterioration in the economy or fiscal position of the State. Right now, we have a substantial infrastructure deficit and a housing crisis but this legislation could prevent the drawdown of funds for infrastructural purposes if a modest surplus were to be protected. This could result in the Government's hands being tied in utilising money to fund or increase capital investments when there is an acute societal need for infrastructural projects such as social or affordable housing. We cannot leave such matters to chance. Funds of this nature have great potential and their primary purpose must be to preserve moneys for when they are required and to use them in the interests of the State when need arises.

The Bill is incomplete, lacks specifics and must be revisited. That is why we will not be supporting it.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also think it is a good idea to prepare for an unexpected future. On the surface, these two proposed savings funds provide some sense of security for the future. They take the form of refurbished rainy day funds, but what the Government is unable to and incapable of recognising is that it is already raining heavily for many people. We need access to the windfall tax revenues to which the legislation refers right now in order to tackle the multiple crises in our public services and in the areas of health, housing, the cost of living, special needs, disability, etc. The list goes on. Most people are struggling because of failed Government policies that continue to prioritise the interests of the wealthiest in our society while neglecting the needs of many ordinary individuals.

We have had consecutive budget surpluses. These appear to give some sense of pride in a job well done as the Government decides to take a substantial amount of people's money from them and lock it away instead of giving it back to them when they need it most. One significant reason for the budget surplus is the lack of spending on public infrastructure, amenities, and services across the country. Now that the Government has this money, it is time to spend it for the public good. The Government would say that corporate tax revenues contributed to the most recent budget surplus and that we cannot rely on a few multinational corporations for future tax revenues. If it cannot rely on future windfall corporate tax revenues, then why propose significant investments in these savings funds? It wants to save for the future when it appears that it will take in more money than it will spend, but using these savings funds for its countercyclical fiscal measures cannot apply in this instance. People are already struggling with the cost of living and the lack of public services. Their needs must be prioritised.

We need to ensure that we end homelessness and provide housing for all, put an end to the trolley crisis and see to it that everyone can afford to survive in the cost-of-living crisis. The Minister should spend his excess on infrastructure for the people now and if there are any remaining surpluses, he should invest them in the funds. We need to fix various crises now before we can talk about saving.

The future Ireland fund will be used to support public expenditure in a consistent and sustainable manner from 2041 onwards, but it is unclear what this public expenditure will be. It could be paying for hospitals and schools, but it could also be used to bail out bondholders as happened during the financial and economic crisis.

A significant concern is that this fund will require 0.8% of GDP to be invested in it each year. This is the equivalent of spending the total transport budget and almost as much as was allocated to the housing budget in 2023. It is important to emphasise that moneys for the future Ireland fund will come from the Central Fund or tax revenues.

Given such a large arbitrary investment amount, it would be inappropriate to link investment in this fund based on GDP only, which is already a very unreliable measure, for one, due to the foreign investment and multinational corporations here that may withdraw moneys from Ireland yet the moneys are accounted by the GDP. With that, the location of investments or where the funds can be held is not only in Ireland. The fund can be invested anywhere so taxpayers' money could leave Ireland for fund ventures elsewhere. Our money should stay here and it should be invested back into the Irish economy to help its people. We need to prioritise the domestic economy and improve economic activity here before lending to others abroad.

In terms of the return on this investment, after investing in Irish business and Irish assets, there should be no risk-taking with this money. Since the Fund is a security and safety mechanism for the future, we should not be playing the stock market or other markets for the purposes of making money. If we create this fund, it should cover pressures in the future and provide risk-free return only.

There are also no provisions for drawing down moneys before 2041. I understand that this is a future fund, but in an economic or societal emergency, there should be a possibility to use those savings to deal with unexpected events. I would like the Minister to address that.

On the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, every year from 2025 to 2030 €2 billion will be transferred from the Central Fund to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. This is a significant amount of money, which is equivalent to the total annual expenditure on An Garda Síochána.

The Bill indicates that from 2025, no more than 25% of the total fund can be transferred to the Exchequer in an instance of deterioration in the economic or fiscal positions of the State. In a potential case of a massive deficit and a shortage of funds to cover public expenditure in the future, why would the drawdown be limited to 25% of the fund? Transfers to the Government should be made in accordance with the needs of the people instead of capping expenditure at a predetermined figure.

It is striking to read that only a Minister can propose in writing a project that would help the environment and combat climate change and that would require the transfer of funds. It appears that no other stakeholder needs to be consulted - we talk constantly about just transition and community engagement - when a decision is made to use this fund for climate issues. In addition, no committee will be consulted on potential environmental projects. Ministers seem to have the sole responsibility for this fund and for decisions relating to where and how much to invest.

It is also clear that from 2026 to 2030, at most, 22.5% of the net asset value - the total funds less liabilities - of the fund not exceeding €3.13 billion per year can be invested in environmental projects. This is a very specific proportion of the fund that can be invested to help the environment and climate change, but far greater investment may be needed in the near future if we are to take up on all the warnings, that are being beamed at us globally and that we see around us, and, indeed, that the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, outlined here yesterday when welcoming the election of the new Taoiseach.

I reiterate that although we need to look to the future and save for unexpected expenditure, it is crucial that we fix the current state of our system. We need all available resources right now to fix the housing crisis and issues relating to healthcare, education and access to early childhood care before we start saving for future unexpected events.

We are in an emergency right now. The Government needs to listen to the people. It needs to invest in the people right now and provide appropriate services and amenities across the country. The Government can spend right now on the environment and fighting climate change and budget for additional expenditures in the future. These funds require participation in capital markets, which means that taxpayers' moneys will be gambled to provide an optimal return on the investment. We do not want an optimal return. We want Irish taxpayers' money invested in Ireland and in safe and secure projects.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me be clear, Sinn Féin supports the setting up of a sovereign wealth fund. Long-term strategic planning of our public finances across the island is at the core of our vision for a new and united Ireland. There is widespread agreement that windfall corporation tax should not be spent on current expenditure. The unreliable nature of corporation tax means that is the prudent thing to do. However, investing in desperately needed capital projects makes more sense than investing in financial assets. We believe there is an urgent need to use available resources for desperately needed infrastructure, most of all in housing, but also in rail, roads, the energy grid, hospitals, schools and regional development to rebalance our country. Where we are unable to invest all windfall tax revenue into infrastructure, due to capacity constraints and sequencing of projects, then naturally it should be stored in funds, but only in these situations.

The best way to protect our public finances into the future is to invest in infrastructure now that can act as a catalyst for growth and prosperity in the future. That is not the approach being taken in the legislation, which completely misses the point. It locks in a predetermined level of transfer to the funds each year based on GDP. The most obvious and basic question is why this is not a percentage of GNI*. It makes no sense whatsoever. It should not be the case that there is a rigid commitment that disregards the prevailing economic environment in the future. We cannot stand over an attempt to legislate for future budget decisions. That is the right and responsibility of the Government of the day.

This legislation reminds me of when the troika were here - when democracy was restricted, and bureaucrats were making decisions. Economic policy in a democracy is decided by the Government and people of the day. Political parties face the electorate and outline their economic policies and, ultimately, the people decide. It is not for the Minister to decide the budget parameters of future Governments. We might criticise the Government's budget decisions but never its right to make them. This legislation is an attempt to lock in a Government's failed economic policies. A Government needs to be able to look at the level of corporate tax receipts and the capacity to ramp up housing and other infrastructure then decide a budget, like every other Government in the past.

This legislation can be fixed. We need to remove specific financial commitments. The Minister of the day should get an assessment from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC, outlining most importantly the level of windfall tax income and other economic forecasting and then decide the right amount to transfer into these funds. The Government is so out of touch that it needs to wake up. This is a rainy day for so many people across the country. What is being proposed is so out of touch with the reality of people's lives.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During budget 2024, the future Ireland fund was highlighted as a crucial measure to safeguard living standards and public services for both current and future generations. The fund will act as a new investment vehicle, which aims to accumulate €100 billion by 2035 to address the country's forthcoming expenditure pressures, specifically in relation to an ageing population, climate change, digitalisation, and other fiscal and economic challenges. The Government's strategy involves pre-loading the financial burdens associated with ageing by establishing the future Ireland fund. Under this plan, funds from the National Reserve Fund, NRF, will serve as the initial capital, with annual contributions amounting to 1.5% of gross national income, or 0.8% of GDP, earmarked until 2035.

Critics may argue that allocating billions for future contingencies is a luxury amidst ongoing challenges in sectors like healthcare and housing. I do not want to take away from the fact there these challenges are present and are significantly affecting many in my constituency and, indeed, throughout Ireland. However, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McGrath, asserted that the fund initiative is not a luxury but a fiscal necessity to prepare for anticipated expenditures rather than merely awaiting a hypothetical rainy day fund. Rather, it is designated to cover known future costs, such as healthcare, pensions, home care and other expenses, with age-related spending expected to increase by €7 billion to €8 billion over the current decade.

The Bill’s proposals would empower the Government to allocate 0.8% of GDP annually to the future Ireland fund from 2024 to 2035. Additionally, approximately €4.1 billion will be transferred from the dissolution of the National Reserve Fund in 2024. With these contributions alongside potential returns from investments and GDP growth, the fund could swell to around €100 billion by 2035. This substantial amount would provide significant resources to manage the anticipated rise in expenditure demands in the forthcoming decades.

Two key considerations were underscored within this Bill. First, while legislation will enforce annual contributions, some exemptions may be granted based on economic data. For example, the Bill also grants finance ministers the authority to halt or decrease contributions to the future Ireland fund in case of a significant deterioration in public finances. Second, a future Government reserves the prerogative to reallocate funds if deemed necessary, although withdrawals from the newly established funds might risk tarnishing the country's reputation. Managed by the National Treasury Management Agency, the future Ireland fund is an investment initiative. Supported by the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, investment funds will be diversified internationally to prevent inflationary pressures within the Irish economy. Notably, it will not invest in domestic assets like Irish sovereign bonds.

While the future Ireland fund presents several potential advantages, it also carries certain disadvantages and risks. Investing the fund abroad exposes it to various risks such as currency fluctuations, geopolitical instability, and economic downturns in other countries. Especially relevant are ethical considerations while investing the fund abroad. This may raise ethical concerns, particularly if investments are made in industries or countries with poor human rights records or environmental practices. Additionally, while it is believed that this counter-cyclical fiscal measure will counteract the effects of the economic cycle and will support major transport and energy projects in the event of an economic downturn. Yet, by prioritising international investments, there is a risk of neglecting essential domestic infrastructure and development projects. This could exacerbate inequalities or infrastructure deficits within Ireland.

Although it is anticipated that the fund could mitigate the necessity for tax increases in the years ahead, additional revenue sources might still be required, which is something to keep to the fore. Additionally, economists are debating that despite the initial high costs, the anticipated benefits of the proposed fund may not be significant. This is attributed to the projected growth of the economy in the coming decades, suggesting that Ireland would essentially be setting aside funds during a period of economic constraint to be utilised during times of enhanced prosperity. For example, if the benefits of this fund are relatively small in the short term, this could lead to dissatisfaction or scepticism among the public, especially if people do not perceive tangible improvements in their quality of life or public services as a result of diverting resources away from pressing needs or investment opportunities. This could result in missed opportunities to address immediate challenges such as healthcare, education, or infrastructure deficits. As an alternative to this fund, economists pose that reintroducing the pension age increases, which were abandoned in 2022, could yield similar effects on addressing ageing-related expenses, albeit without the immediate financial strain.

A further argument is that the Government should utilise windfall corporation tax revenues to establish a fund dedicated to investing in domestic infrastructure instead of opting for a fund that allocates resources overseas. Various stakeholders, including NERI and IBEC have proposed such a fund, underscoring a widespread consensus that windfall taxes should be prudently managed and not immediately spent.

We must also consider the risk of mismanagement, poor investment choices, or even corruption, which could lead to losses and erode public trust. To mitigate these disadvantages, it is essential for the Government to ensure transparent governance, rigorous oversight, and effective communication with the public regarding the objectives, progress, and impact of the future Ireland fund. Additionally, regular evaluations and adjustments to investment strategies may be necessary to maximise returns and address emerging challenges.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just transition is a phrase which has and continues to be used by the Government and activists when it comes to becoming more environmentally sustainable. However, as I have said when I have spoken on the matter, I believe our transition is unjust. Just last week we saw the latest contradiction put forward by Government. On the one hand the Government pressed ahead with increases in the excise duty on petrol and diesel and then on the other hand, a Government agency, the NTA, released proposals which would discourage people from using the Rosslare to Dublin railway line.

I spoke previously about hydrogenated vegetable oil fuel and the possibilities of exploring this as an alternative for motorists, delivery companies, haulage companies and all of those companies which need to use a lot of fuel. The problem with the Government’s approach is that it is penalising people for using petrol and diesel consistently with excise duty increases. We saw this arise last week. We will see more in coming months, as the Minister for Finance confirmed today, in excise duty and carbon tax but these penalties are coming before viable alternatives are in place. We can talk about electric cars all we want but sales are slowing. Depots across Europe are now full with electric cars that cannot be sent anywhere because nobody wants them. The second-hand market for electric cars is almost non-existent. People will spend a lot of money on them and not be sure about how much they will be worth when it comes to doing a trade. There are still outstanding questions about what happens to the electric car after its life is over. What carbon emissions are produced in the manufacturer of the same electric car? The problem with the Government's approach to this and many other things is trying to run before we can walk. The alternatives must be in place for people and they must be feasible alternatives for it to be a just transition. I was one of only about 12 TDs who voted against the Climate Action Bill. The reason I did so was that the Government's current approach is ultimately not going to have the impact that was intended.

If we look at farming, and the Minister with responsibility for that is in the House, in the context of this Future Ireland Fund Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund Bill, it is important to note that farmers continue to be restricted in their work about what they can do; when they can do it; how they can do it; and how much of it they can do. A whole raft of different regulations curtailing their business is in place, much of it handed down to us by our European Union masters. What must be recognised is that Ireland has one of the greenest most efficient, from an emissions point of view, food sources that we will ever have. If we decide to penalise farmers and put further difficulties upon them, they will respond by going out of business and producing less and what will happen as a result is that we will need to import more food products from countries which do it less efficiently. I think that will happen this year because we have yet to sow potatoes.

We should be incentivising increased production in Ireland and ensuring that the farmers of Ireland have a future. We see with the weather in recent weeks the challenges facing farmers and supports that will be needed by them. We also need to prioritise our tree planting. Targets have consistently been missed over the last few years. The licensing system has not worked as well as it should have and overall it seems there is not sufficient focus on benefits from planting trees.

For example, according to an independent report, in 2022, just 2,273 ha of new forestry was planted, which is less than a third of the 8,000 ha the Government pledged to plant each year. We are not getting the basics right and are focusing too much on punishing people. We know the benefits forestry brings, yet we cannot get it right.

We also need to get our public transport system sorted out. In a number of towns, the main bus stop is a long walk away from the main train station, and there is very little link-up between buses and trains. We do not even have a train, metro or any kind of railway near our airports.

The most recent measure is the plastic bottles deposit scheme. In theory, plastic bottle return is not necessarily a bad idea, but it is clearly not working in practice. I have seen people in supermarkets bringing in bags full of plastic bottles, going over to the machine and putting in a few bottles, but the machine then starts to reject the others. People end up having to take those bottles home. Whatever we expect will be the case in future, this is costing people 25 cent a bottle. That does not bode well for the future.

When people are asked in opinion polls, and when I speak to people, their main priorities do not seem to be the same as those of the Government. The Government is out of touch. People want it to succeed on housing and healthcare and get to grips with immigration and the cost of living. I wish the Taoiseach, and the new Ministers in their portfolios, the best of luck in their roles. It is to be hoped that it will mark a change in the approach and focus of the Government. Until now, there has been far too much imposition of taxes on people but very little change.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation. It concerns the use of some of the surplus we see coming in through taxation for future long-term investment. This year, we are looking at a budget surplus somewhere north of €8 billion. The intention is to spend 0.8% of our GDP on investment in this fund. That is approximately €800 for every man, woman and child resident in the country.

I want to see this money invested domestically in our economy and not being used to serve the strategic interests of other countries rather than our country. One area where investment should take place is in our offshore renewable sector. Ireland has a 220 million acre maritime resource off its coast. It has the potential to develop 70,000 MW of offshore renewable electricity. This is enough capacity to not only meet Ireland's long-term needs but those of France and Austria. It is a massive resource off our coast but we need to tap into it. The projections are that by 2037, offshore wind development could employ 5,400 people in the Atlantic region, with a financial dividend of €4.2 billion. We need to see part of this surplus being set aside to support the critical electricity infrastructure that needs to be built off our coast to service these potential wind farms.

We also need to see significant investment in the upgrade of our ports. At present, the only port in this country that can get involved in offshore renewable development is the port of Belfast. When I was in Stormont recently, I had the opportunity to meet with senior management in Harland & Wolff, who are extremely anxious to develop beyond their existing footprint in Belfast, and to look at other ports, including Killybegs in the Minister's constituency, in other locations throughout the country. We should now engage with Harland & Wolff, not just on using its knowledge of the offshore renewable energy sector to develop our other ports, but to provide apprenticeships to young people here to access the skills needed to service this infrastructure into the future. It is imperative that we build the capacity here because at present we cannot simultaneously build multiple offshore wind farms from a single port on this island. It is imperative we put that investment in place.

The most effective way for Ireland to take a leadership role in the offshore renewable energy sector is to establish an offshore renewable development authority, similar to IDA Ireland. This is something that was unanimously adopted by Dáil Éireann in December 2021, but which the Government has failed to act upon. This new authority could drive a fully co-ordinated national action plan, with responsibility ranging from research and development through to the supply chain and commercial deployment of renewable energy, ensuring that Ireland becomes the global leader in clean energy and its export. We have huge potential to export the renewable energy we have off our coast. This export is being led by an Irish indigenous company, Supernode, which wants to build a transmission network right across the European Union bringing clean, green energy from wind off the west coast of Ireland into the European grid, and also bringing solar energy from the southern part of the EU into that grid. We need to work with a company such as Supernode to put State investment into a project like that to ensure it is successful and sustainable into the future, and will provide the market access the country needs.

I will raise two other issues, one of which is directly within the Minister's remit, namely, the current deficit in hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO, in the European Union. We have huge potential to use rapeseed oil as a seed industry to fuel the processing of HVO in this country. Whitegate has already set up a facility to do that. There is potential to increase capacity in that regard. That requires investment. This fund should be involved in expanding the capacity of Whitegate to process and manufacture HVO. We should use this as an opportunity to generate a cash crop for Irish farmers, moving them away from livestock production to tillage production, and helping to meet the targets for the tillage sector the Government is failing to achieve at present. It is a win-win situation for our environment and our farmers and would create a sustainable indigenous fuel in this country. That opportunity now needs to be grasped with both hands rather than sitting on our hands, which we have done to date.

I will raise a final point. We can talk about these projects all we like, but one of the single biggest barriers to the development of green energy, renewable energy projects, and many other industrial projects in this country, is environmental regulations. The difficulty is that environmental regulations are a black box in this country today. We have to wait for judicial interpretations of our legislation. Whether it is EU or national legislation or regulations, they are mired in uncertainty. Year on year, we have had regulations and directives coming from the European Union. Our own environmental legislation has been introduced. We need a consolidation of all our environmental laws into a single piece of legislation. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to direct the Law Reform Commission to go through each and every one of the environmental laws we have in this country, and come forward with a comprehensive, single piece of legislation that will get rid of the current ambiguity, which leaves every project vulnerable and open to judicial challenge.

Let us take the Judiciary out of this. Let us put it into a single consolidated environmental law.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin believes in investment in infrastructure. In my constituency of Cork North-Central, we have seen an infrastructural deficit brought on by decades of underinvestment and neglect by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This has left my constituents with heavy good vehicles, trucks and cars driving through because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael promised a north ring road for Cork and, after they destroyed the country in the financial crash, it was scrapped. Now half of the city has a ring road on the south side, and nothing on the north side. Instead, articulated trucks go through housing estates, putting the people at risk and emitting fumes. Instead of putting away money for a rainy day with this investment fund, the Government should spend it to provide capital investment for people in the State right now.

We recognise the need for an investment fund but not this badly designed investment fund the Government is bringing forward. Can the Minister imagine explaining to people that we have the money to build a northern ring road, build light rail for Cork and put in a proper bus service so people can get to work, college and school, and, most importantly, get out of their cars, but the Government is putting the money away until 2041? How does that make sense when we need these projects now?

There are children tonight in Cork, Dublin and across the country sleeping in hotel emergency accommodation. These children will be adults by the time these funds can be spent. What does the Minister say to those 4,000 children across the State in homeless services? Will he say it is being put in a fund? Is that for their pension? These children need housing now and the Government is failing to deliver social, affordable and cost-rental housing. That is not me saying this; it is the Government's own low targets not being achieved.

There is so much I want to say about my community in Cork North-Central. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have neglected us for decades. What is the Government's answer? Where is the northern ring road? Where is the economic development for the north side of Cork? Where is the new hospital we were promised? Where are the schools we were promised? Where is the money for the infrastructure we were promised? The Government might be coming to an end but the people of Cork North-Central want change because they are sick to the back teeth of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael letting them down again and again.

The water is dirty in the constituency I represent because Uisce Éireann cannot get its act together. Why does the Government not put funding into proper infrastructure and water pipes so the people of Cork, especially on the north side, can have clean drinking water in 2024?

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The future Ireland and infrastructure funds are nice, glamorous ideas but the reality is people and communities need the funding spent on infrastructure right now. I totally agree with Deputy Gould. We talk about infrastructure. Why is a future fund for infrastructure being created when we need funds now for urgent works that need to be done and have needed doing for many years, maybe decades in some cases?

Urgent works need to be carried out at Glenbeg Lough in Castletownbere. I attended a meeting with the concerned people last week worried about the water supply to Castletownbere, Eyeries and Ardgroom. There is serious concern that if there is not sufficient water capacity, it will severely hinder development and expansion of the Castletownbere area. People are being refused planning in the area, as the county development plan guides them on the water supply there.

There are dreams from Uisce Éireann of bringing water supply from so far away that a child would not dream up the idea. There is a simple solution in Glenbeg Lough, and it is a local solution. Former engineers were there and explained it, and now it requires a few people in Uisce Éireann to sit around a table and work towards that solution. If this is not sorted, building projects will be stopped and inshore fishers may not be allowed to use water. If this simple solution is not worked on quickly, Castletownbere and its surrounds cannot grow for the greater good of its economy. The people of Castletownbere deserve that. They are good, hard-working people and want proper development and proper infrastructure. I was the only TD to attend the meeting and promised I would raise this issue in the Dáil but raising it is not good enough. Other politicians will jump up and down now, once I have it raised, to say they will do something. Uisce Éireann must work towards a solution and I have written to the organisation with my brother, Councillor Danny Collins, to make sure there is a proper water supply, but the funds, again, will not be sufficient. The Government wants to throw it away and kick the can down the road.

We move on to the Shannon Vale sewage system in Clonakilty, which has been leaking for 26 years. For the past few years, Irish Water has blamed the council and the council has blamed Irish Water and the game goes on while raw sewage swims around. If this was in counties Wicklow or Dublin, I would give it about a month to be sorted. After 26 years, this is still not sorted. A recent meeting with Irish Water yielded no success. Money is needed but not spent. Why is the money that is needed not spent in Clonakilty and west Cork? Why is the political willpower from the Government not there to give the funds? They need the money. They need to do the sewage in Shannon Vale.

I know the Minister is not interested because he is looking down at his phone or whatever, but I am interested. I am concerned for the people of that area. They are not getting the funding that could be available. That is why I am running a new candidate, Daniel Sexton, in Clonakilty. He will be a new political voice for the people of Clonakilty and Shannon Vale. He will deliver and we will deliver. We will have to boot this Government out because it continuously fails to fund infrastructure where people need it to grow their communities and drink safe water. The people of Clonakilty and Shannon Vale deserve that and not to be surrounded by raw sewage spitting out. It is not good enough. I raise this issue because Uisce Éireann is not fit for purpose. It refuses to reply, to sit down with communities or to give solutions that are needed.

That money is needed and I cannot understand why we are talking about throwing money down the road. Crossbarry is slightly outside my constituency. I have been asked by people there about the bridge there. It is highly dangerous for any young or old person to walk across the bridge. I look at a beautiful place called County Wicklow. There is a bridge outside there. They put a footpath inside the bridge and outside the bridge, but the people of Crossbarry will get no bridge, leaving young children to walk out on the main road and be struck by a car. It is outrageous. The funds are not there. That is why I am running new councillor John Collins to take on the issues there that have not been dealt with.

On fodder for the farmers, the Government gave a fodder package yesterday and it is greatly welcomed. I am the first to commend anyone who helps but fodder needs to be brought in from abroad because there is not sufficient fodder in the country. It is a crisis and there are farmers with serious mental health issues. We need to look at putting money into places like that and we need to look at businesses. The 9% to 13.5% VAT increase the Government put up has ruined many cafés and businesses. The Government needs to look at that and not be looking at putting away money when it needs to spend it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"Future Ireland fund" - yes, future Ireland indeed. Today, 10 April, is the 101st anniversary of the death in action of Liam Lynch, who fought in the War of Independence and the Civil War. I think of the ideas that man had, the noble man he was and of his many colleagues who gave their lives for freedom across the country from 1916 until that period.

We see the democracy we have now and the waste of money is unbelievable. The wonderful Seán Lemass and T.K. Whitaker and visionaries like them did so much to bring electrification, water supplies and everything else and develop Ireland when we had nothing. I heard Deputy Richard Bruton talking earlier of the Ireland we have now. I do not know what planet he is on. Despite the money we have and are turning over, we see poverty, neglect and abject failures of Government and of the public service; I mean nothing personal to the public servants here. We see the Secretary General in the Department of Health getting savage money when there is failure after failure. There are good things being done as well but the children's hospital, the scoliosis waiting list and the hospital in Limerick are three issues Government Members should be ashamed of their lives about.

We had a new Taoiseach yesterday with adulation, congratulation and jubilation. He never turned up for work today. I see his office is telling us now that he was working at his desk at 7.50 a.m. More power to him. He was elected yesterday here. Many people believe there should have been an election to elect him but he was elected here by members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Greens, some Fine Gael Independents, as well as one Fianna Fáil Independent, namely, Deputy Grealish. He may be a Progressive Democrat or whatever you want. It was a dolly mixture. Anyway, that is their business. That is their right and they can answer to the people. However, they are besmirching the names of Independent Deputies because they are not independent. Imagine that the Taoiseach did not turn up for work today and he was going to move mountains yesterday. Deputy Healy-Rae was afraid he was going to go moving Carrauntoohil and there would be no tourist industry left below in Cork. I do not know where he is but his duty or that of the Tánaiste is to be here in the Dáil, or the Tánaiste. It is happening successively, week after week, that neither the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste are here to duly listen to Members raising questions. They are elected under the Constitution to govern the people. They want to be anywhere whether it is the WEF, Timbuktu, Europe, Syria, Damascus or in Ukraine. They want to be anywhere bar here. Their duty is to be in the House to take the questions. The Tánaiste was here today because he came in for the vote. I had met the former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, in LH 2000 earlier and was going to go back for him to see whether he would come and sit in. The other man was running up the stairs - we were told he was mad for this job - and the first day he does not turn up. What impression does that give to the public? If he got a job anywhere and did not turn up on the first day, it would be a red card or definitely a yellow card. It would be two strikes and he would be out.

On infrastructure, I am for putting away money. Certainly, we need to be careful and prudent but we are still short €2.5 million this year to continue the work, the studies and the design of the N24 from Cahir to Waterford. We are struggling for that kind of money and we cannot get it. I also ask about the money we have not got for Irish Water for all the sewerage schemes infrastructure in Newcastle, Dundrum, Golden, Kilsheelan; you name it. Tá Ardfinnan Bridge dúnta ar feadh deich mbliana. It is closed for ten years. A flood came and the bridge was damaged. Money was spent on consultants and as we cannot get €1 million to put a cantilever footbridge over the bridge, it is closed. It used to be a bridge over troubled waters. It is now a troubled bridge over tranquil waters. Money is needed in so many places in so many areas. We should put some away certainly but if we cut out the waste we could put four times away. There is unbelievable waste. Whether it was broadband, the children's hospital or any project being worked on by the State, the Government it is not able to control or deliver them. We need to put money away but we need to take heed of the way in which we are wasting money.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This future investment fund being proposed will amount to €4.1 billion from this year until 2041, up to €100 billion. That is some kind of a rainy day fund. I tell the Minister it is raining and pouring now and many people, not only the farmers, are in trouble. On top of that, the Government is proposing a fund of €2 billion each year until 2030 fund for climate action and nature, €14 billion for the next seven years, on top of the €1 million per day - €365 million each year - for climate action projects, and much more that I do not know about.

Transport, including buses, are a complete joke in many places. We have buses running in County Kerry that will not stop to pick up anyone or to leave anyone off. Most of the time, looking at them, they are the biggest coaches in the country with no one at all inside in them. Where is the money coming from? I will tell the Minister where it is coming from. It is coming from the fellas who are paying 40% and 52% in taxes, as well as 4.5% in USC out of their wages, while they are out early every morning and working every day. It is from the people who are paying more than €1 per litre for excise duty and carbon tax. The Government is getting €1 for every litre and it is still not satisfied. It wants to charge more. Already, €2.5 billion is being spent on immigration and €860,000 for bringing dogs and cats from abroad into Ireland and assisting people to bring these pets. There is no shame in the world in the Government. It is talking about the farmers and I am talking about them too because what it has done is absolutely nonsensical. It proposes to pay for transport through the co-ops just if farmers are bringing fodder for more than 75 km. Many fellas can buy the bales way closer to them. As for the carbon footprint, the Government is trying to force farmers to go beyond the 75 km when all they want is help, either a voucher or some kind of a subsidy such as maybe 100 tonnes towards the cost of ration. It will not pay many of the farmers back for equipment they put in and there is no word at all about the national debt. Where did the problem with the national debt go? We could not pay for a sewerage scheme - nothing at all - or for a water main and we are still not doing anything about our treatment plants. There are places such as Moyvane in north Kerry where you cannot build an extra house because the treatment plant is overburdened. It is the same with Brosna. There is no treatment plan in Scartaglin or Curragh and several other places that need upgrades like Castleisland. Things are at a complete standstill and this is where the Government is going with the money.

Talking about roads, the Government had no bother in the world in giving €600 million for some road above in the North of Ireland that is the responsibility of the United Kingdom. At the same time, no bob was given for the road from Blackwater Bridge to Parknasilla and Sneem, part of the Ring of Kerry route. Parts of this were built maybe 150 years ago for the width of one horse and cart. It was built not so two could pass each other but for one, and they are still that way. If you go around some of those roads with a low load or a car, someone will finish up off the road if they cannot stop.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Financial prudence, of course, is very important. Putting away money for the future is very important but you also have to deal adequately with the problems we have right now. To ensure our future economy will grow, we need to make sure our present businesses will stay operating. I attended a meeting recently in Kenmare, which is representative of many other places throughout County Kerry, where people have been faced with massive rates increases. It is unsustainable and it will lead to many hairdressers, small clothes shops, grocery shops, filling stations and small distributors closing. A door that closes is very hard to open ever again.

Regarding farming, I have mentioned to the Minister already about one of the best and quickest ways to help farmers. I mean this from my heart out. I read very closely what is involved in the fodder transport scheme and I do not agree with it because is not practical. I have spoken to farm leaders both locally and nationally and there is great scepticism. It is not to be critical of the Minister because he knows I do not have that type of a way. If I could come in here and say it was a brilliant scheme, I would, but there are faults with it because it will not be quick enough and not meaningful enough to farmers. There is one thing the Minister could do tomorrow and I ask him to do it. There are farmers owed millions through schemes that are held up with red tape. All the Minister needs to do is direct his officials to pay out the money that is owed to farmers and not to be writing to them looking for this and that. I appreciate he has stopped the non-necessary farm inspections but he should pay the people what they are owed now.

As to forestry, we have a Minister of State for forestry who, to be quite honest, leaves an awful lot to be desired. I do not say that lightly. That Minister of State will go down in history as being the worst-performing Minister in that sector since 1946. I have said it before and I will keep saying it. It is a matter of fact. We are missing out on massive opportunities in Ireland. We are talking about future proofing our finances. We are neglecting drilling for minerals and oils off our coast and we have a Minister who objected to the LNG facility for the Shannon Estuary. Think about the massive boost that would have been to Ballylongford, Moyvane, all of north Kerry up into Limerick and Clare, down into south Kerry, mid Kerry and east Kerry. It would have been a massive boost. What did the Government do? It scuttled it every way it could. These are missed opportunities by this Government. I certainly do not agree with the fact that it decided it was a good idea to give €800 million to build a road above in the North. I would have rather seen the money spent on our local improvement scheme roads in our country, in the Twenty-six Counties. The simple fact is if you take the fund we have nationally it is €10 million approximately and there is the money we are getting in Kerry. The most important piece of road in the whole country is the one you have to travel wherever in the world you are going to. If those roads are bad, and these are people who are paying taxes and who want better roads, instead, the Government's answer is to give away €800 million to the North.

Young people are not willing to come home from Australia or elsewhere abroad because we are not making it easy for them to do so. We should be encouraging them properly by letting them have affordable housing, giving them planning permission on their farms and maybe giving them a driver's licence when they come back rather than have them go through hoops for one.

We need funding to assist the piers and harbours in Sneem and around the Ring of Kerry. I will make a final plea. The Minister spoke about future-proofing. Will he please give us €15 million to ensure that our bid for the World Rally Championship succeeds and it will come to Limerick, Kerry and Waterford because it would be a massive boost?

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first thing we need to look at is food security. The first people we need to look to are our farmers, including in tillage, to make sure we have food security. Across the country, we are seeing people who put food on our tables suffer big-time due to the weather. I welcome the scheme the Minister has introduced but it does not go far enough. It puts more pressure on people as they have to travel 75 km to avail of it.

I spoke to a man last week who is the third generation of his family to work on his farm. He said he received a phone call from the Department earlier in the week to say there would be a departmental inspection. He said to me that he told the Department that if its officials came out, they had better have silage or hay with them and, if not, they could go find somebody else in a worse-off position because he would be hanging from the rafters. This person is at his wit's end trying to feed his animals. I know the Department has postponed inspections but the Minister is not going far enough. Last week, straw from out foreign was put on sale in Kilmallock mart. Farmers were glad to have it but last year the Government funded people to put straw back into the ground. Now straw has to be imported.

Last night, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, spoke in the House about the environment. He has closed down beef factories here and now we have to get beef shipped here from across the world. Does the Government not realise that Ireland is only a small pimple in Europe and if there is a problem in Europe, we will be the first to suffer? What is the Government doing? It is putting food out of production to make sure we will not have food on our tables.

The Government also turns to the farming sector when it comes to pollution. The Government's own studies, carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that local government is the biggest polluter in this country. The Government fines farmers and sends out departmental inspectors but it is not inspecting its own infrastructure.

Forty years ago, Fianna Fáil made a promise to a councillor who is retiring next month to provide funding for a sewerage system in Askeaton. He was promised funding 40 years ago and now there is raw sewage going into the Shannon. It did the same at Dromcollogher 15 years ago. I can keep naming places across Limerick, including Hospital and Oolagh, where infrastructure was promised so that people could survive. None of those promises have been kept.

The Government is now talking about a rainy day fund. Why does it not use some of that fund to keep some of the promises it made 40 years ago? The Government continues to make false promises. People trusted the Government to protect them but they no longer do. They do not believe anything that comes out of the Government's mouth because it does not follow through on anything.

That is why Independent Ireland was formed. It is why independents from around the country are joining us. We are putting a team together with our fellow independents to make sure this Government is held to account for the false promises it has made. That is why Independent Ireland has been formed and councillors from around the country are standing up. There are candidates for European and Dáil elections coming together to make sure that Ireland's true voice will be heard and that the real promises the Government failed to keep for 40 years will be carried out.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all realise how lucky we have been to have corporation tax income but the fact is that some of it is windfall revenue and cannot be relied on. Everybody understands the idea of putting money away for a rainy day but I will hardly be the first person to say that unfortunately it is raining for a lot of people at this point in time.

I do not see how Sinn Féin could in any way support the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund unless they are because they could hamstring future Ministers of future Governments with regard to being able to spend money where it needs to be spent. We all know the advantages of the funds and many have spoken about how capital infrastructure can lead to growth. We know what we need as regards housing. We know the advantages that roads and rail have had in certain places. We know what needs to be done with regard to hospitals and educational buildings. We all know the issues around schools and that some of the planning has not necessarily been done into the future.

We are talking about housing, about which many claims have been made over the last while. I will speak about Louth County Council's affordable purchase scheme and Cois Farraige on the Old Golf Links Road in Blackrock. Even though extra time was allowed, only five of the 26 applicants qualified for the scheme. Louth County Council stated that the criteria in the Government's scheme were the issue. This needs to be looked at. In Dundalk and County Louth in general, a price of €305,000 is not affordable for a lot of people.

Like many others, I believe we need to look at Uisce Éireann and developments. I have spoken to the Minister many times about the damage done by flooding in north Louth, which showed up the issues we have in Dundalk. My experience is similar to Deputy Gould's experience. We have been dealing with brown water for a considerable period. It is caused by manganese. Uisce Éireann has promised a pilot scheme which will, I hope, find a solution. I have been asking for updates on that. I would like an update for the people in the Bay Estate, who are my neighbours, and in all of the estates off Tom Bellew Avenue where there is an issue with water pressure. We were told these homes do not have the correct valve that can determine demand fluctuations. At times, the water pressure drops below 1.5 bar, sometimes to 1.1 bar. That impacts people in terms of shower use and people are spending a huge amount of money. I have been told this will be completed by quarter 2, which could mean June, but I need to follow up. I have submitted requests.

The Minister will not be shocked to hear me ask him if he has any information about the possibility of providing a funding scheme for farmers in north County Louth who experienced damage due to flooding. I know Teagasc has been out and has carried out surveys on farms. If it is possible for the Minister to go slightly off topic to give some information on that, Councillor Antóin Watters and I would be delighted. I could go on.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know you could.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not due to speak in this slot but I am taking it because my colleague is not present. There is a second slot he can use if he does come. Tá sé anseo anois. I will let Deputy Fitzmaurice take this slot and I will take the next one.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not have a second round.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think so.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay. I will wait.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will see.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If not, that is fine. I have not started yet. The Deputy can take this slot.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the nature fund. Luckily for Irish farmers, the nature restoration law is being opposed because it has not been thought out. It is a damnable day, one I never thought I would see, that I would be thanking someone in Italy, Poland or, I think, Türkiye or wherever that Orbán fella is, for not supporting the nature restoration law being applied. Ironically enough, the farming organisations in this country made clear what they think about it. The problem is that they are not being listened to.

I do not mind what the State does with its land. I never did. That is up to the State because it owns its land.

8 o’clock

For farming communities, that would basically have made small farmers viable. We have to be very careful that we keep them going. No more than in the Ceann Comhairle's area, there are small communities that make up what we call a meitheal. We cannot have legislation like that coming in. We can throw money at things. I remember people talking about the bog situation through the years. People would say to me that they were being offered money. If money solved every problem, it would not be a problem. It is as simple as that. However, there are traditions and communities. There could be a nature fund and, in fairness, there is talk about that. However, it is not the individual who gets it. When I look at a community, I have to look around the whole room. If somewhere is rewetted, I do not have to get up in the morning and go out suckling a few calves or counting cattle, so I can live anywhere I want. My kids would not have to go to the school down the road. I would not have to go into the shopkeeper or merchant I buy nuts or get a drop of diesel or petrol from - we are not gone electric yet. We can say that we would look after Johnny, Mary or whoever, and we probably would. However, the outlying consequences of trying to keep what I would call a rural community going are what we have to make sure of.

In fairness to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, there is ACRES and he has brought in what is basically ACRES 2, which I welcome. That is a decision for people to make. I would love it if there was a second suckler cow scheme because, unfortunately, we are losing them by the week. In my opinion, we need to start balancing this debate for the simple reason that we need to assess how much carbon the land, the barley, the trees and all the different things take in. We need to look at what farmers want to do. I spoke to a farmer the other day who said he was going to plant a hectare but he was told that he cannot. I asked him why and he said it was because the new EU rules are that there cannot be a depth of peat of more than 30 cm, or it is over. This is where we have to make sure we do things right.

If we want to talk about doing things differently for water quality, we should talk about anaerobic digesters, which are a very good thing. The biggest problem at the moment is that there is talk about them being used with silage, maize or whatever can be put into them. Obviously, every city and large town in the country needs this help for the simple reason that electricity can be produced from the sludge that Irish Water has, but it has to go somewhere as well. Even at the water treatment plants, when water is treated, there is a certain amount of what we call sludge, which is made into digestate. However, the right hand does not know what the left is doing. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, is talking about giving €3 million, which would hardly do the foundations of one of them. It costs €20 million to build an anaerobic digester, and that is not a big one. People have to get a feed-in tariff, as was done in the North, although maybe we would not do it the same way they did it, given the heating scheme issues they had. Nonetheless, there would need to be a 7, 9 or 11 cent feed-in tariff per kilowatt hour, depending on the size of the anaerobic digester.

Then we hit the big problem. What is the big problem? I was talking to the chair-designate of Bord Bia this evening. In every country in Europe, even those with equivalent bodies to Bord Bia, people can spread digestate, which will reduce the use of fertiliser and it can also be put into gas or used to create electricity. One would imagine that is a fairly good story to be telling. I spoke to the people in Teagasc who research this and they do not have a problem. I spoke to people in the Department of agriculture and, in fairness, they do not have a problem. However, Bord Bia said that, no, it could not do that. That little thing is stopping us from doing this.

At the moment, thankfully, we have PGI status and some of this funding will be going into things like anaerobic digesters. If we want to try to bring people with us, I would be in favour of a system where someone would come to take a farmer’s slurry, bring it to an anaerobic digester and make gas or electricity from it or bring it back in pellet form. Happy days. Great job. Unfortunately, that is not happening because the amount of funding put into this is, first, not there and, second, we do not seem to have a direction as to where we are going with all of this. Germany is where we would learn about this. It would be doing good for water quality and the environment. We have lovely headings as to what we are going to do but, sometimes, if we just concentrated on one thing and actually carried it out, we would be a lot better off. I ask the Government to look at where it is putting this funding. It should bear in mind what I have said. An anaerobic digester costs €20 million but if we look at what is in the budget, that will tell us that while we talk about it, we are not serious about doing it.

As I said earlier, I thank the Minister for putting out the second ACRES. I remember being told that the carbon tax would be shoved onto farming. Off the top of my head, and I am open to correction, I think it was said that we would get €623 million a year and something like €123 million would go to the agricultural side, split up between different things. If we are taking it off people, we should give it back to them. I do not agree with the carbon tax personally because I think it is a bad tax for ordinary people but we should make sure that we reward people. While there are 54,000 or 55,000 in the scheme, which is good and is about 7,000 or 8,000 more than the last scheme, if we can get 70,000 into it, we should be opening the doors and doing that. If farmers want to go into it, we should be encouraging them.

I am all in favour of this. As I said, if the State wants to basically rewet its own types of land, it should do that. However, people should have a look at the newspapers or the news on the television from the last few days. Coillte came into the agriculture committee and told us it has 30,000 ha of forestry on peaty ground that it was going to cut down and then rewet the ground. It looked lovely. That was going to be the solution instead of looking at some farmer somewhere. I do not know enough about it and Deputy Connolly might know more than I do because it was to be in her area. However, when it applied to cut and then restore this area, it was refused. Does the right hand know what the left is doing? As I said, I do not know all the ins and outs of it, and I am not saying anything about the council that refused this as it may have very valid reasons. However, if that is what is going on around the country, we will be talking about doing things forever but we will never end up doing them. That is my big worry in all of this. I again thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an deis píosa cainte a dhéanamh faoin mBille seo atá thar a bheith tábhachtach. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I put an effort into understanding it, because we are dealing with massive figures and different terminology and finance, which is not my area but over the years here I have learned to take notes. I thank the Library and Research Service staff for their hard work and the fool's guide to legislation that they prepare for us on a regular basis and under extreme pressure.

The Bill comprises six Parts with 37 sections and two Schedules. We are talking about a fund of €100 billion in the foreseeable future. Is it not a joyful story that we are finally seeing sense to put aside money so that we will never see this country stuck in the manner that we have on a number of occasions in the past? Yet, I find myself agreeing with Deputy Nash, who said that the fund has been framed in a negative way. It certainly has been. Let us start with the elderly. I have a particular interest in this as I get older that we are now labelling older people as a societal problem rather than it being a delight that people are living longer, contributing to society and actually saving money. That is not put in here at all. We are looking at a sovereign fund which should make me jump for joy because we have all heard about the sovereign fund in Norway that was put in place with its oil revenue. However, this sovereign fund gives me great concern. For simplicity, and the people in the future who might look at this and wonder what is all about, it is important to set out the major points. We are setting up two fund, the first of which is the future Ireland fund. This will be made up of 0.8% of GDP every year until 2035 or 2036 and that fund cannot be touched until after 2041. It has been pointed out by various colleagues on this side of the House that the GDP, which we all learned off my heart and learned what it meant, is not very reliable at all. It gives a misleading picture of how successful Ireland is because of the distortion caused by foreign direct investment but that metric is going to be used here. Nobody has explained this to us. The Minister has not explained to us how we are now reliant on that.

The other fund is the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, into which €2 billion will go every year, plus the amount that comes from the existing fund that is going to be dissolved. We will have €2 billion every year, so we will have €4 billion after the first year. That will continue until 2026 and then some of that can be drawn down. When I look at it, my difficulty with all of this is that it is set out in such restricted way. First, the money is being invested for maximum return. It is not necessarily the right way to use public money for maximum return with no guarantee that any amount of it will be invested in the country. Then we will be dependent on timing. If the country needs that money, it will all depend on how it is invested and where it can be drawn down.

There are two funds, ostensibly to help the Government in the future cope with difficulties with expenditure if it does not have enough money to spend because of a downturn in the economy. The first one requires 0.8% of GDP every year, regardless. The second one requires €2 billion every year, regardless, being put away. Then, access to that is through two ways. One is for general expenditure and the other for the climate and nature fund. Some 25% can be taken out for general expenditure and up to 22.5%, a lesser figure, for climate and nature. We get lost in all these figures and I ask myself: what is this all about and why can I not agree with this when it is a wonderful idea to save? Any mother, any sensible woman at home tries to put a few bob aside because she knows the importance of saving.

However, we are doing the saving in a particular way at a particular time when we should be spending and not leaving enough flexibility to be able to access the funding in the next ten years when it is needed. Yesterday, I pointed out that there were 71 people on trolleys in hospitals in Galway. I do not think there is anyone present who does not know someone who has spent time on a trolley. Members of my family have. It is an obscenity that anyone has to spend any time on a trolley. Not alone is it an obscenity, but we know from repeated evidence from consultants that, at a minimum, between 330 and 350 people die prematurely every year, which is directly related to the time spent on trolleys. Health has been described as a hole for money. I do not use words like that. Health is a basic human right, like housing. How did we get to this situation? I have had the privilege of sitting on a health forum for ten years of my life and I witnessed the systematic running down of the public health system from 2006 to 2016. It started with the PD-led Government that knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. That is when the commodification of our health service really went into overdrive. At the same time, in parallel with that, the Government channelled the money and our solutions into private medicine. I was a member of Galway City Council when we rezoned land for the building of a private hospital. The argument put forward was that 20% of the beds would be reserved for public beds. They magically disappeared, of course, as soon as the rezoning was done by majority vote. We could get lost in the anecdotes I am telling except there is a point to them. It was the commodification of health and housing. This is being brought to an absolute pitch with the HAP scheme, which costs most than €1 billion when it is included with the rental accommodation and long term leasing schemes.

Here we are with these two funds and we are tying them to GDP and obtaining the maximum return and putting the emphasis on spending, albeit capital spending, but it is not entirely clear. In addition, we are linking it with the national debt. I am no expert on debt, but it is completely fite fuaite. The use of the money seems to be entwined with the annualised cost of servicing the national debt.

Carbon credits have not been excluded. This money could be used for us to purchase our way out of obligations. During pre-legislative scrutiny, the question of whether this money could be used for carbon credits was raised. We were told that the argument did not arise in respect of the first fund because that does not become effective until 2041, so we do not need to worry our little heads about that. After 2041, God knows who will be here but they can worry about whether the money is used for carbon purchase. On the second fund, we were reassured that the infrastructure climate and nature fund was not intended to be used as carbon credits. There is no policy or no guarantees at all on the matter. These are meaningless words really given there will be different governments and different priorities.

Then we look at the human rights and where the money is going to be invested. I look back a question I asked courtesy of my office, which did a lot of work on it in relation to the report, Irish Business and Human Rights: A snapshot of large firms operating in Ireland, published by Trinity College Dublin in January 2024. I looked at the work by Professor Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders and that of the Irish Coalition for Business and Human rights, ICBHR. I looked at all them in the context of how we will ensure that the billions of euro of public money being put aside will not be used by companies that have little regard for human rights. I do not see the phrase "human rights" mentioned anywhere in the documents before me and I have read all of them. Environmental, social and governance issues are mentioned. That is pathetic. Having spent four years of my life on the Committee for Public Accounts, I saw governance of the entities that came before us, including the universities, that one would not expect to see anywhere. We have seen the fruits of that in the last weeks in the University of Limerick. I see environment, social and governance, but I do not see any mention of human rights. I do not see spelled out is what we should not invest in. Let us consider the Trinity College report from January of this year.

Over half of the 50 largest companies in the Irish economy scored 30% or less on corporate uptake of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Where did they come from? They came from a UN framework that embeds the "Protect, Respect, and Remedy" principles. There are 31 guiding principles and the human rights council endorsed them in 2011. To date, 32 states have taken them up, including Ireland. Ireland was very good and launched its first action plan in 2017. That plan has been out of date for three years and there is no sign of a new plan. There is no sign of a new plan in relation to our obligations and whether we are going to continue protecting, respecting and remedying under the 31 guiding principles. On the tenth anniversary of these principles in 2021, the UN working group on business and human rights said that uptake "needs to move more widely into the mainstream of the business community".

The report I referred to is a snapshot of large firms operating in Ireland. It was published this year and runs to 45 pages. It examined the implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights of the 50 largest companies in Ireland. Separately, but parallel to that, the authors looked at the next ten largest State-owned enterprises in this country. Three measurements or themes were used: governance and policy commitments; embedding respect for human rights; and conducting human rights diligence and grievance mechanisms. The report found that 86% of the companies scored less than 50% of the available marks. While 88% of the companies made explicit commitments to human rights, specific commitments to workers' rights were more limited. A full 28% of the companies scored no points. Deputy Ó Murchú said earlier that he could go on and I too could go on but I will try to limit my comments, given the time I have left. Companies with their domicile or headquarters in Ireland performed, on average, less well than the sample as a whole. State-owned enterprises fared very poorly, with five of such enterprises in this country scoring less than one point out of a possible 24. Coillte, CIÉ, Dublin Airport Authority, and EirGrid all scored zero points. The IHREC commented on the need to take action. The action plan ran out in 2020 and there is no sign of a new one. What am I saying about all of this? The words that are being used here - "environment", "social" and "governance" - are pathetic, given that background and that failure to embed human rights. An Oireachtas Library Service briefing points out the position in relation to the Irish Strategic Investment Fund and the NTMA, which is over that fund. During the recent committee discussion on the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill on 20 March this year, Mr. Nick Ashmore, director of ISIF, advised that the NTMA has engaged multiple external investment firms to manage the different parts of its portfolio. It is probably a wise decision to get different firms involved and I have no difficulty with that. ISIF currently holds investments in companies included on the human rights council database of business enterprises involved in certain activities related to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. The fund announced that it would be divesting of €2.95 million and that was positive but there remains €10 million invested in companies that are on the UN database.

I would have thought we would be seriously interested in learning from a pandemic and from the climate catastrophe that is just around the corner. We declared a climate emergency back in 2019, not led by this House but led by children and concerned people on the ground. They forced us into declaring an emergency. We should learn from that emergency and from Covid. What do we do with this wonderful opportunity of a sovereign fund and windfall money as a result of taxes from the corporate sector? If we take Covid, we were in a mess for many reasons but one of the main ones was that we had utterly failed to resource our public health system. We have still utterly failed to resource it on a regional and county basis so that people can learn to trust public health officials in the event of a new Covid or a new epidemic.

In relation to climate change, we are doing things in a piecemeal fashion with no transformative change. We should be using these sovereign funds in a different way. Yes, we should put aside the funds but we need access to them now, in the immediate future, and in the longer term to bring transformative change. My worry, having read all of this, is that we are proceeding to follow the very same model that led to the catastrophe in relation to climate change and the financial disaster that deeply affected ordinary people on the ground but not the more privileged classes. I would have thought, in my ignorance, which I am slowly trying to get rid of as I learn more of this language, that we would invest or make it a condition that we invest in our own country, and that we would invest with safe returns rather than entering the market. There is a need to enter the market but it must be done in a balanced way. It must be balanced by Government policy. If 71 people were on trolleys in Galway hospitals yesterday and that is repeated all over the country, there is something seriously wrong. I get and send emails on a daily basis where I appeal, like all Deputies, on behalf of people who are on the housing waiting list for 20 years in Galway city. They have been forgotten. Such is the crisis with homelessness and other pressures on staff that people are waiting 20 years to be housed. If we come back from 20 years to 15 years, I can genuinely tell the Minister that I am getting replies telling me the staff have no idea when these people can be housed. With a financial brain, one would say there is something wrong here; we need to do something. We need to finance the local authorities. We need to provide them with staff, expertise and money to build public housing on public land. We are not doing that. The last direct-build public authority house in Galway was built in 2009. We did not build another house until 2020 or 2021, under pressure. We have an ongoing task force in Galway that is not fit for purpose and has become another bureaucratic layer. It should be asking how much land is in Galway, how much of it is public, how many houses we can build on it and a whole range of measures but none of that is happening.

Similarly, on hospitals, what infrastructure is necessary now and in the next ten years and how can this sovereign fund deliver on that? I see none of that here and while I agree in principle that it is a very good idea to have a sovereign fund, this is anything but a sovereign fund. This is putting money aside to deal with the economic downturn that will happen because we are refusing to make our country less dependent on the outside world in terms of energy sufficiency and having communities on board - we are not doing that - adequate housing, adequate health and public education. That is what makes a society and a republic and that is what the sovereign funds should be used for.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this debate for their constructive engagement on what is important and far-seeing legislation. I am certain my colleague, the Minister, Deputy McGrath, looks forward to engaging with Deputies further on Committee and Report Stages on the issues which have been raised this evening. As the Minister stated during the significant amount of time he was present in the House to deal with this legislation today, the Bill legislates for two new funds, the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, which the Government believes is an important step to ensure the continued resilience of our public finances.

By setting aside part of our tax receipts now, we can deal with foreseen and unforeseen challenges in the future.

Ireland’s public finances are currently in a strong position, underpinned by record corporation tax receipts, which last year reached nearly €24 billion. The strong performance of corporation tax in recent years has increased the risk of relying on these volatile and unpredictable receipts to fund permanent increases in expenditure. We also know that changes to the international tax regime in the coming years could negatively impact on corporation tax receipts. While these revenues are, of course, absolutely welcome, it is therefore essential that they are not used to fund permanent expenditure. Ultimately, the best way to mitigate the risk of an over-reliance on corporation tax is to keep public expenditure growth at sustainable levels, which will be achieved by continuing to follow the appropriate budgetary strategy. These funds will take advantage of the favourable conditions that Ireland is currently facing, while acknowledging the assumption that a large proportion of the increase in corporation tax receipts seen in recent years is windfall in nature.

I will reiterate some of the comments made by the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, in respect of the two new funds. The future Ireland fund will help deal with future expenditure pressures including ageing, climate, digitalisation and other fiscal and economic challenges. Other actions are likely to have to be taken to deal with these pressures, yet this fund should be of enormous benefit in resolving these issues. Its purpose is to support, in a consistent and sustainable manner, State expenditure from 2041 onwards. The legislation does not provide for these resources to be directed at any specific expenditure, as the use of the resources from the fund are a matter for the Government of the day. It would be impractical and imprudent for a Government at this point now to determine the priorities of a Government in the 2040s and beyond.

The infrastructure, climate and nature fund will seek to deal with the procyclical nature of public spending and to assist with climate change objectives and nature, water quality and biodiversity issues. The fund will provide for resources for spending in a future downturn to support expenditure through the economic and fiscal cycle. It is important that there are resources are available that can be brought to bear in the event that there is a future downturn in order that we can finalise existing capital projects and commence new ones. It recognises that there are challenges in dealing with the issues of climate change and the need to reverse the degradation of the biosphere and contribute to improving water quality in our lakes, rivers and seas.

In response to Deputies, I want to reaffirm that the management and control of the new funds will be with the National Treasury Management Agency, which has extensive experience managing the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF. This legislation provides for the overarching investment policy and strategy for the two new funds, "to invest on a commercial basis so as to seek to secure the optimal total financial return" while having regard to "the level of risk to the assets, including any such risk posed by environmental, social or governance, ESG, matters" and "the likely timings of payments from the Fund".

The inclusion of environmental, social and governance risk in primary legislation is an important point, as it is ensuring that the investment mandate of the new funds and the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund is clear and allows for the investment strategies of each fund to be amended. Under the proposed legislation, there will be an extensive ESG approach for the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund and the two new funds. First, specific provisions in the Bill set out the investment policies for each fund. These are the statutory parameters underlying how the National Treasury Management Agency will hold and invest the assets of each fund. The NTMA will be required to invest on a commercial basis, while having regard to environmental, social and governance risks to the funds. Second, the legislation provides for the investment strategy of each fund to outline the classes of assets in which the funds may be invested, a description of how the NTMA takes into account ESG risks and also a description of the categories of investments which the funds shall not be permitted to be invested in and the exclusions. Third, the NTMA will be required to consult with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in preparing the investment strategies. The Minister will also be able to consult with any Minister considered appropriate on the investment strategy. This engagement at political level is an important balance on the evolution of the NTMA’s strategy for all three funds.

I acknowledge the points raised by Deputies in respect of the Private Members’ Bill to prevent the National Treasury Management Agency, through the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, from investing, directly or indirectly, in companies listed which have activities in the Palestinian occupied territories. As they will have seen, the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath has been advised by the NTMA that it has decided to divest from certain ISIF global portfolio investments in companies that have certain activities in the occupied Palestinian territory. The divestment decision relates to shareholdings with a total value of €2.95 million in six particular companies. These are mainly banks, with one large supermarket group. ISIF has determined that the risk profile of these investments is no longer within its investment parameters and that the commercial objectives of these investments can be achieved through other investments. The decision will be implemented as soon as possible in the coming weeks. While recognising the independence of ISIF in the management of the investment portfolio, I know that the Minister, Deputy McGrath, believes this is the correct investment decision in respect of the assets it manages on behalf of the State.

A number of Deputies have raised the issue that the resources for these funds should be spent for today's issues. There are significant existing commitments under the national development plan over the coming years. Capital expenditure has increased from €3.7 billion in 2015 to almost €13 billion last year. The overall level of capital funding is now at an all-time high, including expenditure on social housing, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and public transport projects. On top of that, we must bear in mind that there are capacity constraints in our ability to use significantly more resources for capital expenditure projects. In terms of current expenditure, given that we have a concentration of corporation tax receipts and nearly half of those receipts are estimated as being windfall in nature, it would be unwise to embed permanent expenditure measures on the back of those receipts.

Deputy Nash raised an issue in respect of the process as to how projects may be designated. Deputy Whitmore also raised the important role of nature and biodiversity. They are clearly included in the Bill also. The process outlined in the Bill provides for the designation of projects as environmental projects where a relevant Minister is satisfied that the project contributes directly or indirectly, or is likely to so contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the State; the achievement of environmental objectives derived from a number of EU water regulations; the achievement of conservation objectives or the implementation of conservation measures or administrative and contractual measures established under the birds and habitats directive; or the implementation of a plan, programme or strategy, the national biodiversity action plan or guidelines under the Wildlife Act 2000. Some examples of projects that may be provided for under this fund could be expanding the national barriers mitigation plan; delivery of the nature restoration plan for Ireland; the decarbonisation of industry; or increasing the deployment of renewable energy generation and strengthening our national grid. The allocation of funding for designated environmental projects will be a process overseen by the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform in consultation with relevant Ministers in line with the normal Estimates process.

On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, I thank Deputies and the Oireachtas committees for their contribution to the development of this legislation to date. It is important legislation, as I think all Deputies would recognise. We fully expect a detailed debate on Committee Stage in the coming weeks. The Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, is very much looking forward to a detailed consideration of the provisions of the Bill and will engage closely with Deputies as the Bill continues its journey.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the next weekly division time.